FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1365872-0
Total Deleted Page(s) = 92
Page 3 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 4 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 5 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 8 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 9 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 11 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 12 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 13 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 16 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 17 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 18 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 19 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 20 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 21 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 22 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 23 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 24 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 25 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 26 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 27 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 28 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 29 -- b6; b7C;
Page 30 -- b6; b7C;
Page 31 -- b6; b7C;
Page 32 -- b6; b7C;
Page 33 -- b6; b7C;
Page 34 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 35 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 36 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 37 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 38 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 39 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 40 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 41 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 42 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 43 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 44 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 45 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 87 ~ Referral/Direct - 147A-OM-571 Serial 770/EOUSA;
Page 88 ~ Referral/Direct - 147A-OM-571 Serial 771/EOUSA;
Page 167 ~ Referral/Direct - 147A-OM-571 Serial 784/EOUSA;
Page 282 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page 283 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page 284 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page 285 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page
286
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
287
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
288
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
289
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
290
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
291
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
292
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
293
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
294
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
295
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
296
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
297
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
298
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
299
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
300
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
301
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
302
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
303
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
304
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
305
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
306
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
307
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
308
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
309
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
310
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
311
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
312
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
313
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
314
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
315
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
316
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
317
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
318
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
319
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
320
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
321
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
322
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
323
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
324
--
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
325
--
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
327
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
328
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
329
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
330
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X Deleted Page(s) X
X No Duplication Fee X
X For this Page X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
FOI/PA
DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
FOI/PA# 1232055-0
Total Deleted Page(s) = 92
Page 3 ~ b6; bVC;
Page 4 ~ b6; bVC;
Page 5 ~ b6; bVC;
Page 8 ~ b6; bVC;
Page 9 ~ b6; bVC;
Page 10 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 11 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 12 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 13 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 14 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 15 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 16 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 17 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 18 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 19 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 20 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 21 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 22 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 23 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 24 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 25 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 26 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 27 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 28 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 29 -- b6; b7C;
Page 30 -- b6; b7C;
Page 31 -- b6; b7C;
Page 32 -- b6; b7C;
Page 33 -- b6; b7C;
Page 34 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 35 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 36 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 37 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 38 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 39 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 40 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 41 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 42 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 43 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 44 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 45 ~ b6; b7C;
Page 87 ~ Referral/Direct - 147A-OM-571 Serial 770/EOUSA;
Page 88 ~ Referral/Direct - 147A-OM-571 Serial 771/EOUSA;
Page 167 ~ Referral/Direct - 147A-OM-571 Serial 784/EOUSA;
Page 282 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page 283 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page 284 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page 285 ~ OTHER - Pursuant to Court Order;
Page
286
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
287
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
288
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
289
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
290
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
291
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
292
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
293
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
294
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
295
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
296
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
297
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
298
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
299
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
300
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
301
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
302
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
303
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
304
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
305
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
306
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
307
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
308
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
309
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
310
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
311
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
312
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
313
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
314
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
315
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
316
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
317
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
318
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
319
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
320
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
321
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
322
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
323
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
324
--
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
325
--
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
327
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
328
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
329
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
Page
330
-
OTHER
-
Pursuant
to
Court
Order ;
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X Deleted Page(s) X
X No Duplication Fee X
X For this Page X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
FD~302 (REV. 3-10-82)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
- 1 -
Date of transcription 9/25/ 9 0
I
voluntaril y appeared at the FBI offic e ,
Omaha, With hl5 attorney
interviewed SA L
Investiaa- ^ion and S A
Service.
■t
n the Federal Bureau of
f the Internal Revenue
] was
b6
b7C
provided the following information.
was advised he was being interviewed regarding
additional funds discovered in an audit of his checking account at
FIRST WESTROADS BANK embezzled from FRANKL IN COMMUNITY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION from 1985 to 1988. 1 l had previously been
interviewed regarding his embezzlement of funds which were
obtained from filling out an expense voucher depositing those
funds into his checking account at FRANKLIN COMMUNITY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION (FCFCU) . Further review of FCFCU determined FIRST
WESTROADS BANK maintaining an a<j ;count under the joame
account number
nin^
_Qd
Review
of the FIRST WESTROADS BANK checking account reflects additional
funds being deposited into the checking account for the year 1985
in the amount of $2,934.00; for 1986 in the amount of $7,690.00;
1987 in the amount of $8,555.95; and for the year 1988 a deposit
of $365.00. Audit reflected a total sum a $19,544.95 in
additional funds being embezzled from FCFCU and deposit ed into
Ldvised that
I I account at FIRST WESTROADS BANK
he made the deposits. A review was conducted
amount for 1985, 1986, and 1987. He
of each individual
admitted that the funds were
deposited into his account and he obtained the monies from FCFCU
by the use of the expense voucher or by the issuance of a money
order in his name which deposj .ted into the account. I I
stated "Yes, I did it."
advised he had forgotten about
t-hp af.nmin-h whp.n bp, was previously being interviewed by
SAs| land advised that he did not recall it
even though he was asked if he had additional accounts in the
previous interview.
advised he utilized the WESTROADS BANK for
payment cJf bills wnere a check would be utilized since FCFCU did
not have individual checking accounts; he m aintained this checking
account for the payment of personal bills. I [ advised no
other individual was aware of his account and did not utilize
~| advised he always filled out an expense
those funds.
Investigation on 9/20/90 at Omaha, Nebraska Pile
by SA ^
Date dictated
This docuntent contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the F
to your agency: it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
9/^d/9e (USiQ
FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83)
Continuation of FD-302 of
■ On 9/20/90
, Page
b6
b7C
voucher and never ob-hained th^ e funds by just taking cash out of
the teller drawer. | |was employed at FCFCU as the head
teller and as a result had access to the drawer and had authority
over the expense voucher system as previously stated in the
previous interview.
~| advised he had no other source of income other
than his employment at FCFCU. All monies reflected in the audit
were monies he obtained by fillin g out an e xpense voucher and
embezzling the funds from FCFCU. I [ advised that he did not
receive any extra paychecks or have extra outside employment,
never received any inheritance, and explained the funds he
obtained as embezzled funds from FCFCU. At this time
shown the numerous expense voucher tickets of which he circled
and signed for the ones he had filled out and utilized to obtain
funds from 1985 through 1988 and were deposited into his FIRST
WESTROADS BANK.
was
1 advised he had no other checking accounts,
• -i_ _ • c ^
savings accounts, and was sorry that he did not inform the agents
investigating this matter about the account d uring the first
His attorney, I I infojrmedQ
interview.
he had to
be truthful and could no longer lie or forget and that he needed
to be very honest with the interviewing agents and at this time he
was to tel l the truth regarding his involvement at FCFCU.
advised he provided all the information that he is aware
of regarding FCFCU and his employment.
advised he is willing to plead guilty and that
the additional funds discovered in his FIRST WESTROADS BANK
account would now total a pproximate ly $28,000.00 for the total
embezzlement from FCFCU. 1 l advised he was willing to plead
guilty to that and that the information that he was to plead
guilty to on September 21, 1990, should be altered to reflect the
new amounts discovered in the FIRST WESTROADS BANK.
pM prj
U. S. GiS faicT COURF
G:$Ta:cT of ^iedraska
900CT-I PH 4: 23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR'B. rj ^ r r <1 ppci
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff (s) )
CR 89-0-63
MEMORl^UM AND ORDER
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR., and )
ALICE PLOUCHE KING, )
)
Defendant (s) . )
This matter came on for a status conference on October 1,
1990. Counsel for all parties appeared for a status conference in
chambers. Having received a written request for an evidentiary
hearing by Steven E. Achelpol and Marilyn N. Abbott, counsel for
Mr. King, and having been further advised of the position of Mr.
King through standby counsel, Alan G. Stoler, and having been
further advised as to the position of the United States of America,
and having been further advised as to the position of the defendant
*
Alice Plouche King,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. the written correspondence received from Alan G. Stoler
and Steven E. Achelpohl and Marilyn N. Abbott is herewith tendered
to the clerk of the court, who shall file the same, but said
correspondence shall remain sealed until further order of this
court ;
2. the Pretrial Services Officer is herewith directed to
contact the witnesses identified in the correspondence from
OL-i' li . 1990
0
attorneys Achelpol, Abbott, and Stoler to arrange for their
testimony ^ ;
4
3. an evidentiary hearing on the issue of Mr. King's
competency is tentatively scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on
October 17, 1990, and to continue through October 19, 1990, if
necessary;
4. a hearing on the anticipated motion to close the
evidentiary hearing is scheduled for October 10, 1990, at 9:00
a.m., before the undersigned.
DATED this 1st day of October, 1990.
BY THE COURT:
It was the agreement of all counsel that said witnesses
should be called by the Court as the Court's witnesses. It was
further agreed by all parties that the Court should initiate the
direct examination of the witnesses, allowing counsel to put
reasonable additional follow-up questions to the witnesses. It was
further agreed by all parties that the witnesses should be directed
to bring with them such additional pertinent records as the
witnesses may have and which have not been previously produced. The
Court intends to generally proceed as agreed by all parties.
2
RICHARD G. KOPF
MAGISTRATE
United States District Court
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
P.O. BOX 457
OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68101
CERTIFIED MAIL-RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
TELEPHONE
402-221-4178
FTS: 864-4178
October 4, 1990
Dr^
Iitimanuax meircajL Health Center
6901 N. 72nd Street
Omaha, NE 68122
Dr. I I
6600 France Avenue South
Suite 545
Minneapolis, MN 55435
b6
b7C
Dr I I
Federal Medical Center
P. 0. Box 4600
Rochester, MN 55903-4600
Dr. I I
2250 College Blvd.
Suite 340
Overland Park, KS 66211
Dr. I I
Menninger Clinic
Law and Psychiatric Department
Box 829
Topeka, KS 000601-0829
Re: United States v.
CR 89-0-63
Dear Doctors:
To each of you please find enclosed an original subpoena duces
tecum. Pleas e note that you are t o bring with, you all records
pertaining to | ~| which have not previously been
produced to the court. As indicated on the face of the pertinent
subpoena, the schedule for testimony of each of i. you is as follows:
October 17, 1990
October 17, 1990
October 18, 1990
October 19, 1990
October 19, 1990
9:00 a.m..
1:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
77i
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Page 2
October 4, 1990
On another matter,, some of you have asked Pretrial Services
Officer l [ whether, and to what extent, you will be paid for
your testimony. Based upon your questions, I instructed the Clerk
of the United States District Court to contact the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts. The Clerk's Office advises me,
based upon advice of the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts, that -.payment of such fees are to be made by the Department
of Justice. Accordingly, the Chief Deputy Clerk of our Court
indicates that after you have attended the hearings and given
testimony, you should subm;
It a bill
to
the
Clerk
of the United
States District Court, c/o
“Til
Chief
Deputy Clerk,
ubmit the bill
P. 0. Box 129 DTS, Omaha, N:
eaioi.
will
then s
to the United States Attorney for the Distict of Nebraska. At that
point, the United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska will
handle further processing of your claims.
If you have any further questi ons, please do not hesitate to
contact P-retr-i al .qta-rvi Officer I ] whose telephone
number is
Thank you very kindly.
Very truly yours.
United States Magistrate
RGK ; gm
Enclosure
cc: All Counsel of Record
Don Ranheim, Pr etrial Services Officer
I ~t Chief Deputy Clerk
b6
b7C
Schumacher & Achelpohl
Attorneys at Law
A PARTNERSHIP
INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney Street
James R. Schumacher, P.C. Omaha, Nebraska esioz-iaos
Steven E. Achelpohl
Gregg H. Coffman
Marilyn N. Abbott
John W. Steele
Stephanie Weber Milone Octoberber 3, 1990
The Honorable Richard G. Kopf
U.S. District Court
Ed Zorinsky Federal Building
17th & Capitol Streets
Omaha, NE 68101
I b6
RE: U.S. V. CR89-0-63 b7C
Dear Judge Kopf: ^
Enclosed is Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion to Close the
Competency Hearing along with a copy of the Motion to Close the
Competency Hearing which has been filed with the Clerk's office and
a copy of the Motion for Change of Venue.
Based upon our reading of the local rules, we do not believe that
the briefs filed in support of motions are public record. For this
reason, we would request advance notice in the event that any media
attorney seeks to obtain a copy of the brief either from your office
or the U.S. Attorney. In the event such request is made by an
attorney who plans to be heard on the closure question, we would seek
a protective order prohibiting disclosure of brief by the attorney for
the media prior to delivery of the brief to the attorney.
TELEPHONE:
(402) 346-9000
TELECOPIER:
(402J 346-6112
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the District of Nebraska
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and
ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants .
CASE NO. CR89-0-63
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
COMES NOW the Defendant, Lawrence E. King, Jr., by and through
his undersigned attorneys, and hereby renews his Motion for Change
of Venue, and for a transfer of the trial from the District of
Nebraska. The Defendant offers the Brief previously tendered in
Support of the Motion to Change Venue.
The Defendant hereby requests an evidentiary hearing on this
Motion.
LAWRENCE E. KING, Defendant
Marilyn N'. Abbott
SCHUMACHER & ACHELPOHL
1823 Harney St. , Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68102-1908
(402) 346-9000
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above and
foregoing Motion for Change of Venue was served by depositing in
the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on this S>A/f day of October, 1990 to
Thomas D. Thalken, First Assistant U.S. Attorney, P.p. ^BoxjL22~8r~~-
iS>0
m t m iii i m niiiiii m i
b6
b7C
DTS,
120
1004
Omaha, NE 68101; Jerold V. Fennell, Suite 225, Regency Court,
Regency Parkway Drive, Omaha, NE 68114 and to Alan Stoler,
Historic Library Plaza, Omaha, NE 68102.
Marilyn Ir. Abbott
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the District of Nebraska
UNITED STXTES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and )
ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants. )
CASE NO. CR89-0-63
MOTION FOR CLOSURE OF
COMPETENCY HEARING AND SEALING
OF TRANSCRIPTS AND RECORDS
OF THE HEARING
COMES NOW the Defendant, Lawrence E. King, Jr., by and through
his attorneys, and requests an order of this Court granting closure
of the competency hearing currently scheduled for October 17-19,
1990 and for sealing of the transcript and all records of the
hearing. It is specifically requested that the Court enter an
Order allowing the presence at the hearing of only necessary court
personnel, the attorneys for the government, the Defendant, his
attorneys, and witnesses. In support of this motion, the Defendant
shows the Court as follows:
1. This Court has previously found that the pre-trial
publicity regarding this case has been "massive, and in some cases
inflammatory" .
2. Further, this Court has also found that evidence and
testimony elicited at competency proceedings are "considered
privileged information and shall be used only in proceedings to
determine Mr. King's competence to stand trial".
3. Due to the massive media publicity, the right of the
Defendant to a fair trial will be irreparably damaged by
inadmissible, privileged, and prejudicial information being
disclosed to potential jurors.
4. The press and public have a right of access to criminal
proceedings but this right is not absolute as set forth in Gannett
Co. V. DePasauale County Court . 443 U.S. 368 (1979). In Gannett,
■■■■■■
i
• •
the Supreme Court held that the trial judge has an "affirmative
constitutional duty to minimize the effects of prejudicial pre-
trial publicity." Id. at 378.
9
5. Closure of the hearing will avoid damage to the
Defendant's right to a fair trial through prejudicial pre-trial
publicity.
6. In the event the hearing is not closed, the Defendant
requests this Court to readopt for purposes of this competency
hearing the Court's ruling of March 29, 1990 as specifically made
in Paragraphs 10 and 11 regarding partial closure of the hearing to
protect the 5th Amendment privilege and the attorney client
privilege.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays for an Order of this Court
granting closure of the competency hearing and sealing all
transcripts and records of the proceeding. Further, the Defendant
requests that attendance at the hearing be limited to necessary
Court personnel, attorneys for the government, the Defendant and
Defendant's counsel, and witnesses.
LAWRENCE E. KING, Defendant
By
SCHUMACHER & ACHELPOHL
1823 Harney St., Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68102-1908
(402) 346-9000
Alan Stoler
1823 Harney St., Suite 1004
Omaha, NE 68102-1908
(402) 346-1733
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above and
foregoing flotion for Closure wag^erved by depositing in the U.S.
Mail, postage prepaid on this ) day of October, 1990 to Thomas
D. Thalken, First Assistant UrS. Attorney, P.o. Box 1228 DTS,
Omaha, NE 68101; Jerold V. Fennell, Suite 225, Regency Court, 120
Regency Parkway Drive, Omaha, NE 68114.
Stfe^en E. Acherpohl
Marilyn N. Abbott
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the District of Nebraska
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. CR89-0-63
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) ■
)
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and )
ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants. )
'f
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR CLOSURE OF COMPETENCY HEARING AND
SEALING OF RECORDS AND TRANSCRIPTS OF THE HEARING
Steven E. Achelpohl
Marilyn N. Abbott
SCHUMACHER & ACHELPOHL
1823 Harney St., Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68102-1908
(402) 346-9000
Attorney fpr
Lawrence E. King, Jr.
- and -
Alan Stoler
1823 Harney Street, Suite 1004
INTRODUCTION
The Defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr. moves this Court for an
Order closing an evidentiary hearing with respect to his competency
to stand trial. The Defendant also requests the sealing of all
records and transcripts from such hearing. This motion places
before the Court the question of balancing the Mr. King's right to
a fair trial versus the public interest in access to pre-trial
criminal proceedings.
STANDARDS FOR CLOSURE
The primary cases on closure of criminal proceedings are
G annett Co,. , Inc, v. De P asauale Countv Court . 443 U.S. 368 (1979)
Richinond Newspapers. Inc, v. Virginia . 448 U.S. 555 (1980).
Both addressed the problem of balancing the constitutional
guarantees afforded the accused versus those afforded the press and
the public.
In Gannett , the press and public were excluded from a pretrial
hearing on a motion to suppress. The defendants argued that an
unabated buildup of adverse publicity had jeopardized their
ability to receive a fair trial". The Supreme Court held that the
public had no constitutional right under the Sixth and Fourteenth
Amendments to attend criminal trials. Id. at 391. While the Court
noted that the public had a right to access to criminal trials, it
held that this right was not absolute under the First and
^®^^teenth Amendments. Id . at 391—93. The Supreme Court
recognized that pre-trial publicity can endanger the ability of a
defendant to receive a fair trial, and the trial judge has an
"affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of
prejudicial pretrial publicity." Id. at 378. To safeguard the due
process rights of the accused, the trial judge may take protective
measures even if tl^ey are not "strictly and inescapably necessary".
Id . at 378.
The Gannett opinion discusses the special risks of publicity
concerning pretrial proceedings, specifically suppression
proceedings, noting that the purpose of such a hearing is to screen
out unreliable or illegally obtained evidence. Publicity attending
such proceedings "could influence public opinion against a
defendant and inform potential jurors of inculpatory information
wholly inadmissible at the actual trial." Id. at 378. The danger
of such publicity was characterized as "particularly acute" because
it may be difficult to measure with any degree of certainty the
effects of such publicity on the fairness of the trial. id. at
378. Unlike the trial itself, where '• inadmissible prejudicial
information" can be kept from the jury in a variety of ways,
information publicized during pre-trial matters cannot be kept from
9
prospective jurors. Id. at 378-79. The Supreme Court observed:
[c]losure of pretrial proceedings is often one
of the most effective methods that a trial
judge can employ to attempt to insure that the
fairness of a trial will not be jeopardized by
the dissemination of such information
throughout the community before the trial
itself has even begun.
Id. at 379.
The Gannett decision underscores that the right to a public
trial under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment is for the benefit
of the accused, not the public. Id. at 381. The Court reasoned
that the Sixth Amendment "permits and even presumes open trial as
a norm", but held that the Sixth Amendment does not require that
pretrial proceedings be open to the public. Id. at 385.
In Richmond Newspapers. Inc, v. Virginia . 448 U.S. 555 (1980) ,
the Supreme Court considered the question whether a right of access
to the trial itself, as distinguished from hearings on pretrial
motions, was constitutionally guaranteed. The Court held that "the
right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of
the First Amendment; without the freedom to attend such trials,
which people have exercised for centuries, important aspects of
freedom of speech and 'of the press could be eviscerated. '" Id. at
580. [Citation and footnotes omitted.] The Court ordered the
opening of the trial because the trial judge failed to make
findings to support closure; no inquiry was made into alternatives
that might ensure fairness; and there was no recognition of the
constitutional right of the public or press to attend the trial,
id. at 580-81. Finally, the Court held, that "[ajbsent an
overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a
criminal case must be open to the public". Id. at 581. The Court
then clarified its holding as follows:
We have no occasion here to define the
circumstances in which all or parts of a
criminal trial may be closed to the public . .
. but our holding today does not mean that the
First Amendment rights of the public and
representatives of the press are absolute.
Id. at 581 n. 18 [citation omitted] .
The cases following Gannett and Richmond Newspapers have
applied a three-prong test discussed in Justice Blackmun's
dissenting opinion in Gannett to the closure question. The test
requires that a defendant who seeks closure establish the
following:
First/ he should provide an adequate basis to
support a firiding that there is a substantial
probability that irreparable damage to his
fair trial right will result from conducting
the proceeding in public.
Second/ the accused should show a substantial
probability that alternatives to closure will
not protect adequately his right to a fair
trial.
Third/ the accused should demonstrate that
there is ^ a substantial probability that
closure will be effective in protecting
against perceived harm.
443 U.S. at 441-42.
The Eighth Circuit followed this test in United States v.
Powers/ 622 F.2d 317 (8th Cir.1980). In that case the defendant
sought to close the entire trial from the press and public. He
argued that he would not be able to adequately present his defense
in a public proceeding because he had acted as an informant for law
enforcement officials. The Court held/ "the benefits of an open,
public trial are substantial. Only in the rare case will closure
to the press be necessary in order to protect a defendant's right
to fair trial," Id. at 323. The Court specifically addressed
circumstances where the prosecutor did not consent to the closure;
in this case the defendant was required to carry the burden of
demonstrating a "strict and inescapable necessity for closure."
The court found that Powers failed to meet all three prongs of the
Gannett test. Id. at 325. However, Powers is distinguishable here
because it involved a motion to close the trial itself, not a
pretrial proceeding.
In United States v. Civella . 493 F.Supp. 786 (W.D. Mo. 1980),
defendants moved to close pretrial hearings and seal pretrial
motions because they had been subject to "unprecedented publicity"
and anticipated widespread coverage to continue. The District
Court found that the test set forth in the Eighth Circuit's opinion
in Powers was applicabTe to pre-trial motion closure requests. In
denying the motion, the Court noted that the publicity had been
"substantial", however "[t]he defendants have not claimed that news
media sources outside the Kansas City vicinity have given them
extensive pre-trial publicity". Id. at 789. The court stated
that the metropolitan newspapers ("Kansas City Star" and "Kansas
City Times") were not widely circulated in the out-state counties,
therefore the court would not agree that there was "widespread"
pre-trial publicity in the case. The District Court also noted
that no evidence was adduced as to the extent of coverage by the
electronic media. The Court denied the closure motion finding that
there was "no evidence before the court indicating that the
defendants have received other than minimal pre-trial publicity
outside of Kansas City." Id. at 790. Having denied closure, the
court held that a sua sponte transfer of the trial to Springfield,
Missouri was "strongly supported, if not mandated" by the Supreme
Court based upon the reasoning contained in Gannett and Sheppard v.
Maxwell . 384 U.S. 333 (1966). The District court specifically
noted the admonition of Gannett that " . . .a trial judge has an
affirmative constitutional duty to minimize the effects of
prejudicial pre-trial publicity . . .." Id. at 790, quoting
6
Gannett at 2904.
A number of courts have faulted closure orders in which the
judge failed to articulate reasons why closure was necessary,
and reasons alternatives to closure were inadequate. See In re
Applicat ion of the Herald Co. . 734 F.2d 93 (2d Cir. 1984). United
States V. Criden. 675 F.2d 550 (3d Cir. 1982); In re United States
ex rel. Pulitzer Publishing Co. . 635 F.2d 676 (8th Cir. 1980).
In United States v. Chagra . 701 F.2d 354 (5th Cir. 1983), the
Court found closure of a pre-trial hearing proper. The Court
recognized that there is a first amendment right to attend criminal
trials "unless it is demonstrated that some curtailment of that
right is required 'to protect defendant's superior right to a fair
trial' or that some mother overriding consideration requires
closure.'' Id. at 361. This case involved a motion to close a pre-
bail reduction hearing, which was opposed by several
newspapers. The Court held:
Evidence adduced at bail-setting procedures
may present a serious threat to the
defendant's fair trial right. Evidence may be
considered in a bail reduction hearing that
would not be admissible at trial. Fed.R.Evid.
1101. Moreover, some alternatives available
to reduce the danger of prejudice at trial,
like sequestration of the jury, are simply
unavailable at the pre-trial bail reduction
hearing.
Id. at 364. The Court in Chagra noted that the Judicial
Conference and the Justice Department had approved the "less
stringent standard" for closure set forth in Justice Powell's
concurring opinion in Gannett :
Justice Powell ... would require the
defendant only to "make some showing that the
fairness of his trial likely will be
prejudiced by public access to the
proceedings." Id. at 401, 99 S.Ct. at 2916,
61 L.Ed.2d at 635. The Judicial Conference of
the United States has approved the less
7
stringent standard proposed by Justice Powell.
See Revised Report of the Judicial Conference
Committee on the Operation of the Jury System
on the- "Free-Press — Fair Trial" Issue 87
'F.R.D. 519, 535 (1980). The Justice
Department has also adopted this standard. 28
C.F.R. §50.9 (1982). We hold that a defendant
seeking closure of a pretrial bond reduction
hearing overcomes the first amendment right of
access to that hearing if he shows that ;
(1) his right to a fair trial will likely be
prejudiced by conducting the hearing
publicly;
(2) alternatives to closure cannot
adequately protect his fair trial right;
and
't
(3) closure will probably be effective in
protecting against the perceived danger.
Id . at 364-65.
The trial judge proceeded to consider a change of venue within
the state of Texas. Because the "publicity had been pervasive
throughout the State" this alternative was rejected. Id. at 365.
The Fifth Circuit noted that the Judge should have considered a
change of venue to a district in another state under Fed.R.Crim.P.
21, but held such error harmless. Id. at 365.
The Court in Chagra addressed the First Amendment question as
follows:
Recognition of a right of access by the public
and the press does not obliterate the
differences between trial and pretrial, nor
does it fix the judicial scales against
closure beyond counterweight. Despite the
categorical language of the first amendment,
the rights it safeguards are not absolute.
Id . at 364.
In conclusion, the Fifth Circuit held:
There is no single divine constitutional right
to whose reign all others are subject. When
one constitutional right cannot be protected
to the ultimate degree without violating
another, the trial judge must find the course
.that will recognize and protect each in just
measure, forfeiting neither and permitting
neither to dominate the other. The public
enjoys a first amendment right of access to
pre-trial bond reduction hearings. That
right, however, must accommodate other
constitutional rights.
Id . at 365.
PRIOR ORDERS OF THIS COURT AND PRIOR HEARINGS:
COMPETENCY AND CHANGE OF VENUE
On March 30, 1990, this Court made findings and
recommendations regarding Mr. King's competency to stand trial.
This Court recommended that Mr. King be found incompetent to stand
trial and be placed in an appropriate facility for treatment. The
findings of the Magistrate were approved by the Honorable William
I
G. Cambridge, District Judge by Memorandum and Order dated April 3,
1990. The District Court also forwarded various psychological
records regarding Mr. King to the United States Medical Center for
Federal Prisoners at Rochester, Minnesota, noting that the
"facility shall not disclose such documents to the public and such
documents shall remain sealed." United States v. Kina . CR89-0-63,
Memorandum and Order of the Honorable William G. Cambridge,
District Judge, April 3, 1990, p.2.
Prior to the hearing on competency on March 30, 1990, this
Court issued a Memorandum and Order which embraced guidelines for
the hearing based upon the ABA Criminal Justice Mental Health
Standards, Standard 7-4. 6a. The Magistrate noted as follows;
Any information or testimony elicited from the
defendant King at any hearing or examination
on competency or contained in any motion filed
i)y the defendant to the court or to any person
evaluating or providing mental health
services, and any information derived
therefrom and any testimony of experts or
others based on information elicited from the
defendant King, shall be considered privileged
information and shall be used only in
proceedings to determine Mr. Kina*s competence
to stand trial and related treatment or
habilitation issues.
United States v ♦ Kina . CR89-0~63, Findings and Recommendations of
the Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States Magistrate, dated
March 29, 1990, p.l (eniphasis added).
At the hearing held on March 30, 1990, no live testimony was
adduced and all records and documents relating to Mr. King's mental
health were placed under seal by the Court. See, United States v.
lyjig, CR89~0-63, Findings and Recommendations of the Honorable
Richard G. Kopf, United States Magistrate, dated March 30, 1990.
Furthermore, numerous orders have been entered during the
competency proceedings in this case sealing all records of a
medical or psychological nature. See, United States v. Kina . CR89-
0-63, Memorandum and Orders of the Honorable Richard G. Kopf,
United States Magistrate, dated March 9, 1990, March 30, 1990,
August 28, 1990, September 4, 1990, September 5, 1990, and
September 10, 1990. For example, transcribed telephone interviews
between and among the Court, counsel and the medical personnel from
both the Springfield and Rochester facilities have been sealed.
By Order dated May 3, 1990, this Court made Findings and
Recommendations on the Defendant's Motion to Change Venue out of
the District of Nebraska pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. , Rule 21. The
Court ruled that the Motion for Change of Venue should be denied
without prejudice to reassertion during or after voir dire. In
that Order, the Court stated as follows:
While agreeing that the publicity surrounding
this case has been massive, and in some cases
inflammatory, I disagree that the publicity
has been sufficiently inflammatory so as to
•raise a presumption that venue ought to be
changed prior [to] an effort to select a jury.
* * *
Suffice it to say the publicity has been
extensive, and, regrettably, in some
instances, inflammatory.
* * *
In the counties that comprise the Omaha and
Lincoln jury wheels the publicity has been
extensive. However, in the counties which
comprise the North Platte jury wheel the
publicity has been minimal, except for
statewide circulation of the Omaha World
Herald. (Exhibits 2, 4, 13, and 14 (received
4-16-90) ) .
United — States v. Kina . CR89-0-63, Magistrate's Findings and
Recommendations, the Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States
Magistrate, dated May 23, 1990, pp.1-2. The Honorable William G.
Cambridge, United States District Judge adopted the Findings and
Recommendations of the Magistrate regarding the Motions for Change
of Venue. United States v. Kina . CR89-0-63, Memorandum Opinion and
Order of the Honorable William G. Cambridge, United States District
Judge, dated June 13, 1990.
ARGUMENT
At every stage of these competency proceedings, this Court has
rightly attempted to ensure that the records and circumstances
surrounding Mr. King's mental evaluation and treatment be kept
confidential, privileged and to the extent possible under seal.
The Defendant's interest in privacy and confidentiality as trial
approaches is no less important at this stage of proceeding, as
trial approaches. The passionate curiosity with which the media
has covered this proceeding remains unabated.
The competency hearing is a pretrial proceeding. Thus, the
constitutional right of the press to attend the trial itself is not
involved in assessing this closure question. This competency
proceeding involves disclosure of information more sensitive than
even a suppression hearing in many respects. Questions relating to
the attorney-client privilege, and the privilege as to
psychological matters pronounced by this Court will inevitably
arise at the competency hearing. Notwithstanding that Mr. King was
forced to submit to the mental evaluations in question, disclosures
made by him relevant to the competency issue not only will become
known to the government, but may be evidenced at, the hearing,
notwithstanding their privileged character and their
inadmissibility at the trial. By this Court's prior order, all
psychological information adduced at the competency hearing will be
inadmissible at the trial. However, the liklihood such disclosures
will find their way into the public domain and into the minds of
prospective jurors is manifest. Moreover, matters of a highly
personal nature will inevitably be disclosed which are embarrassing
to Mr. King and his family.
We have found no cases where the specific issue was the
closure of a competency hearing and the attending pre-trial
publicity associated with such a hearing. The most analogous cases
appear to be where pre-trial suppression hearings were sought to
be closed. The key argument in suppression cases such as Gannett ^
12
supra, has been that pre-trial publicity could prejudicially affect
the defendant because the confession could nonetheless come to the
attention of potential jurors through the publicity. Where massive
9
publicity exists, the purpose of a suppression motion is undercut.
In the event the suppression motion is not granted, the confession
or other evidence will eventually be used at trial against the
defendant. In contrast here, this Court has already held that the
information or testimony elicited from the Defendant is privileged
and shall only be used in connection with the competency
proceedings. See, United States v. Kina . CR89-0-63, Memorandum and
Order of the Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States Magistrate
dated March 29, 1990.
The Defendant meets Justice Blackmun's three-prong test
embraced in United States v. Powers . 622 F.2d 317. First, there is-
a substantial probability that irreparable damage to his fair trial
right will result from conducting the proceeding in public. The
news media has reported this case with a kind of voyeuristic
curiosity not ever seen in this District. The publicity
surrounding the Indictment, congressional and state grand jury
investigations have been described in other briefs. To date, the
commentary regarding Mr. King’s competence — the issue sguarely
before the Court — has run rampant, suggestions having been made by
many including high ranking public officials that Mr. King is
devious, is faking it, is a con man and the like. Remarkably, the
state grand jury, which carries the authority of the State of
Nebraska, reported that many witnesses believed Mr. King to really
be competent, the clear inference being that some manipulation had
occurred in the prior competency proceeding. The only plausible
argument that irreparable damage will not occur from an open
competency hearing is that the devastating damage to Mr. King's
right to a fair trial has already occurred.
Second, Mr. King has shown that there is a substantial
probability that alternatives to closure will not protect
adequately his right to a fair trial. Alternatives to be
considered would include holding the hearing immediately prior to
sequestering the jury, using voir dire, continuance, severance, and
admonitory instructions to the jury. None of these alternatives
are workable or fair.^
Based upon this Court's earlier findings regarding change of
.venue, the entire State of Nebraska through the massive circulation
of the Omaha World Herald has been exposed to the publicity in this
case. The Court has denied the Motion for Change of Venue without
prejudice. However, the Court in Civella case, changed venue sua
sponte based upon only "substantial” newspaper coverage in the
-limited area of Kansas City. Further, the Fifth Circuit in Chaara
case clearly indicated that the Court in response to closure motion
should consider an out of district change of venue in the event
that pre-trial publicity is likely to harm the rights of the
defendant to a fair trial.
Third, to the extent it is possible for Mr. King to get a fair
trial in this District, closure of the competency hearing is the
only effective alternative to protect against the inevitable harm
which will occur from the microscopic media attention. Because the
^he need for a prompt determination of competence is great.
No further motions or proceedings can fairly go forward without Mr.
King s participation. Thus, waiting until immediately prior to
sequestering the jury is out of the question. The Court is not
continue the case, and no continuance is likely to
abate the massive publicity. Using voir dire, we submit, confronts
defense counsel with the thankless choice of: i. electing to
question prospective jurors about the publicity, risking that
jurors unaware of the publicity will become aware of it through
questioning or, on the other hand, 2. electing not to question
jurors about the publicity and risking that some jurors exposed to
and prejudiced^ by^ it will be nonetheless seated on the jury. To
rely on admonishing instructions would be, we submit, akin to
allowing a drop of ink to fall into a glass of water, and asking
the juror to pull the drop of ink out of the water. We seriously
doubt any juror will be capable of effectively washing away the
prejudicial pretrial publicity which has occurred here.
14
Court has consistently sealed the mental health records of Mr.
King, there has been to date little or no public dissemination of
information by the press about Mr. King's mental competency, except
for the Court's Findings and Recommendations dated March 30, 1990.
Closure of this hearing will serve to provide counsel with much
greater latitude in fully and fairly airing evidence relevant to
the competency determination. Mr. King's best interests require
a full and fair competency hearing. Defense counsel should not be
be placed in the quandry of refraining to make an inquiry relevant
to the competency question, in order to limit prejudice to Mr. King
from the public disclosure of such information. There is a
significant risk that an open hearing will stifle legitimate
inquiry into the competency question.
This Motion places before the Court the question of closing
the hearing to the press and public based on pre-trial publicity in
addition to the concerns set forth in the earlier motion of the
Defendant King through Mr. Stoler, Court-appointed counsel for an
"in camera hearing". The earlier motion for an in camera hearing
requested the exclusion of the government based upon the possible
testimony of Mr. King's Court-appointed attorneys and the
concurrent risk to the attorney/ client privilege, the right against
self-incrimination and privacy concernings of the Defendant. As
previously noted, the hearing that was held on March 30, 1990 which
led to the Court's finding that Mr. King was currently incompetent
to stand trial in fact did not involve any live testimony, nor were
any records unsealed for the public and press to review. The harm
which was sought to be avoided by the Motion for an In Camera
hearing, in fact, never occurred based upon the eventual
disposition at the earlier hearing. Further, additional mental
evaluations of Mr. King have taken place since the March 30, 1990
hearing and the risk of prejudicial publicity based upon Mr. King's
testimony as elicited in those reports is exacerabated.
Based upon the media fury over this case, it is reasonable to
expect the reports of the psychiatrists will be published or
reported in detail by the news media. While the psychological
reports and records regarding Mr. King are sealed, counsel will
request the Court to review the reports and other related documents
to evaluate the nature of information elicited from Mr. King by the
mental health professionals and their recording that information in
reports and other documents. The coinmentary to standard 7-4.6 of
the Criminal Justice Mental Health Standards expresses the concern
which counsel has for publication of testimony or reports based
upon Mr. King's elicited comments;
Standard 7-4.6 harmonizes the conflict between
the judicial system's need to compel defendant
cooperation , in court-ordered competency
evaluations and defendants' privilege against
self-incrimination. If a court has a good-
faith doubt about a defendant's present mental
competence, it is obliged to resolve the issue
promptly. That in turn requires an accurate
professional assessment of mental condition
that must rest, at least in part, on
information supplied by a defendant, some or
all of which may be incriminating because it
relates to an alleged offense. Indeed,
granted the nature of the techniques commonly
used by qualified evaluators, a more serious
infringement of self-incrimination protections
may ensure than in the station house
interrogation severely restricted by the
Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona: Because
evaluators occupy a somewhat ambivalent
position, defendants may see them as a
"helper, healer or sympathizer," even though
they discharge an objective professional role
on behalf of appointing or authorizing courts.
Consequently, they often obtain information as
adversaries. To require defendants to
cooperate in interviews of this sort might
well infringe [the] privilege against self-
incrimination unless suitable safeguards as
established. Standard 7-4.6 delineates those
safeguards. (Footnotes omitted.)
Pp. 199-200.
16
The critical issue relating to Mr. King's competency involves
his ability to assist in his own defense. Of necessity# the mental
health professionals have delved into that specific area which
carries with it inherent risk to Mr. King's privilege against self-
incrimination.
The Court need only examine the sealed reports of the various
mental health professionals to determine the nature and the
quantity of Mr. King's statements made during evaluation. Further,
the Order of this Court finding Mr. King incompetent to stand trial
clearly shows that a determination of Mr. King's competency
requires detailed inquiry into the content and thought processes of
Mr. King. In order for the Court to fully and fairly evaluate Mr.
King's current competence to stand trial, the Court of necessity
will question mental health professionals about Mr. King's
communications .
Because the reports of mental health professionals have been
sealed by the Court, it would be improper here to relate specific
statements by Mr . King and arguments as to their possible
prejudicial nature.^ However, we ask that the Court review these
reports in order to evaluate Mr. King's communication and the
impact on potential jurors reviewing those communications through
media coverage.
We emphasize that the opinions of the mental health
professionals which will come to the media attention in the event
the hearing is not closed have a strong probability of adversely
affecting Mr. King's right to a fair trial, it is unrealistic to
expect media coverage to narrowly and objectively discuss only the
would also be counterproductive, and this highlights the
difficulty which massive media attention on the competency
P^®^®®d.ing presents^ to defense counsel. If we make our argument by
reference to specific^ facts and statements of Mr. King, we
seriously risk the publication of such portions of our Brief, thus
defeating the purpose for which the closure motion has been filed
in the first place.
17
evidence introduced at the competency hearing. Specifically,
following the Court's March 30, 1990 recommendations on Mr. King's
competency, the , Omaha World Herald interviewed various
acquaintances of Mr. King who provided their own evaluation as to
his competency. A local psychiatry resident was interviewed on all
three local television stations offering his prognostications as to
when Mr. King would return, what his prospects for recovery were,
and so forth. Most recently, the Douglas County Grand Jury made
the following evaluation as to Mr. King's competency:
Evidence and testimony heard regarding the
issue of King's incompetence to stand trial
for his crimes have shown much disagreement
with the incompetency ruling. However, we did
not have the benefit of any psychiatric
evaluations performed on King. Almost without
exception, friends, acquaintances, and former
employees maintained that King is without a
doubt mentally capable of standing trial and
assisting in his own defense. King was
uniformly regarded as a very clever and
manipulative person.
Douglas County Grand Jury Report dated July 23, 1990 at page 3 as
published in the Omaha World Herald.
The State Grand Jury report was forty-two (42) pages long and
was published immediately following it's issuance, in its entirety ,
in the Omaha World Herald. This Court has previously noted the
statewide saturation level of the Omaha World Herald. This is
clearly prejudicial type of publicity which will impact Mr. King's
right to a fair trial. This Court has no way of controlling the
content of the media coverage and as demonstrated by the State
Grand Jury Report, questions of competency turn into questions
regarding character and credibility in the lay person's mind.
There should also be consideration given to Mr. King's privacy
in regard to his medical records and his mental health. Congress
has recognized this type of privacy through excluding medical
records from the Freedom of Information Act. There is no question
that Mr. King was compelled to participate in the mental health
evaluation process.
Whetl\er the Court applies the test contained in Justice
Blackmun's dissent contained in Gannett or the test contained in
Justice Powell's concurring opinion in Gannett . we believe that the
result would be the same. There not only is a "substantial
probability that Mr. King's fair trial rights will be irreparably
damaged if the competency proceeding is conducted in public; there
is almost a guarantee that this damage will occur. This is
directly related to the massive publicity that has surrounded this
case and the nature of the evidence contained in the reports of
mental health professionals and anticipated testimony. One does
not have to strain the ''imagination to understand that if Mr. King
chooses to testify at trial, specific information that was
publicized from the competency proceeding could clearly influence
a juror's determination of credibility. On the other hand, if Mr.
King chooses not to testify at trial, one does not have to labor
long to understand the potential impact of a juror being exposed to
media coverage regarding not only the content of Mr. King's
statement to the health professionals but also their specific
opinions with regard to Mr. King's mental health.
There continues to be in this day and time a stigma attached
to psychological treatment. Further, the legal determination of
competency to stand trial and the standards to be applied are
extremely complex and perhaps not understood by many attorneys. In
view of this fact, the prejudice which may arise from media
coverage of these proceedings cannot be underestimated. The
determination of competency has been "slopped into" a question of
insanity by the public. The State Grand Jury examined competency
from the perspective of acquaintances of Mr. King and apparently
reached a conclusion that Mr. King was "clever and manipulative".
Media coverage of the prior competency proceeding quotes a number
of individuals who opined that the competency proceeding was a
defense strategy. United States Representative Peter Hoagland
voiced his opinion on KKAR Radio that the "psychiatrists need
psychiatrists". Other media articles have conjectured that Mr.
King had been sent to the United States Medical Center for
Prisoners at Rochester, Minnesota in order to drug him and alter
his mind. The newspaper, radio and television coverage of this
case and specifically the competency proceedings to date have been
very similar to the "circus atmosphere" identified in Sheppard v.
Maxwell . supra. Beyond the specific examples of the type of
coverage that has been experienced in this proceeding, there is
still the grave concern that Mr. King's own statement via the
mental health professionals will come to the attention of
prospective jurors and’ these statements are clearly inadmissible
based upon prior rulings of this Court. Prior publicity in this
case only goes to show the nature and extent of the publicity which
can be anticipated if the hearing is not closed.
It also is clear that if the hearing were closed the harm
associated with inadmissible pre-trial publicity being heard by
potential jurors would be eliminated. Of course, all transcripts
and evidence from the hearing itself would also of necessity need
to be sealed in order to avoid the damage to Mr. King's fair trial
right .
20
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the purpose of the competency hearing is not to
inquire into the guilt or innocence of Mr. King. It is limited to
a determination of competency. The testimony and evidence elicited
at the hearing are privileged and the public and press cannot argue
that they are entitled to information that no jury will ever be
allowed to hear. The Defendant requests this Court to issue an
order closing the competency hearing and sealing all transcripts
and evidence elicited in connection with that hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
LAWRENCE E. KING, Defendant
By
Steven E. Acheipohl It
Marilyn N. Abbott ij
SCHUMACHER & ACHELPOHL
1823 Harney St., Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68102-1908
(402) 346-9000
1823 Harney St., Suite 1004
Omaha, NE 68102-1908
(402) 346-1004
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the above and
foregoing Defendant's Brief in Support of Motion for Closure of
Hearing and Sealing of Records was served by depositing in the U.S.
Mail, postage prepaid on this day of October, 1990 to Thomas
D. Thalken, First Assistant tTTS. Attorney, P.O. Box 1228 DTS,
Omaha, NE 68101 and Jerold V. Fennell, Suite 225, Regency Court,
120 Regency Parkway Drive, Omaha, NE 68114.
^.r
r
• i
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR., and
ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CR. 89-0-63
ORDER I F 3 L F D
LdisTRICT OF NEBRASKA
AT- M
SEP 2 8 1990
Norbert H. Ebe), Clerk
By,— „ • Deputy
For purposes of determining Defendants' standing to assert
their Fourth Amendment suppression claims:
IT IS ORDERED:
By October 12, 1990, the parties shall submit to the Court
affidavits and itemized accompanying materials showing, with
respect to (a) the execution of the November 4, 1988 search
warrants, (b) the National Credit Union Administration's
conservatorship order and takeover, and (c) the November 14, 1988
grand jury subpoena to the NCUA:
(1) what areas of Franklin Community Federal Credit
Union and Consumer Services Organization —
(a) defendants used as their personal office (s)
(including secretarial space) .
(b) defendants exercised exclusive right of entry or
control of entry.
(c) employees of Franklin Community Federal Credit
Union and Consumer Services Organization, but not
the general public, were authorized to enter.
( 2 )
what items were seized within each of the areas
listed in subparagraph (1). A
1 ; ' ‘ ‘ ‘ i
b6
b7C
(3) what items seized were —
(a) personal property of the defendants;
(b) within defendants* personal possession; and/or
(c) reflected substantial personal input of defendants
in their making or creation.
September 28, 1990
2
J
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, j CR. 89-0-63
)
vs . )
)
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and )
ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants . )
GOVERNMENT'S OPPOSITION
TO MOTION TO CLOSE COMPETENCY HEARING
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
District of Nebraska
and
THOMAS D. THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
District of Nebraska
and
JOEN GRANT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
District of Nebraska
P.O. Box 1228-DTS
Omaha, Nebraska 68101
(402) 221-4774
b6
b7C
Defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr., has requested that this court
close the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 17, 1990, to
determine his current competency. The government opposes closure.
The Supreme Court has found a right of public access to
criminal proceedings in the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Richmond Newspapers. Inc, v. Virginia . 448 U.S. 555 (1980). The
Court has applied this concept to limit closure of voir dire,
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court . 464 U.S. 501 (1984), to
strike down a state statute which excludes the public during
testimony of a minor victim in a sex offense trial. Globe Newspaper
Co. V. Superior Court . 457 U.S. 596 (1982) and to limit closure of
preliminary hearings, Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court , 478
U.S. 1 (1986). While not providing a clear ruling on whether such
right of public access applies to all pre-trial proceedings, nor
specifying the standard that must be met — and by whom — to
justify closure, the Court has stated that proceedings to which
such right applies cannot be closed "unless specific, on the record
findings are made demonstrating that 'closure is essential to
preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that
interest.'" 478 U.S. 1, 13.
The Eighth Circuit has provided a clear ruling on the standard
that must be met — and by whom — in U.S. v . Powers . 622 F.2d 317
(8th Cir. 1980). In affirming the trial court's refusal to close
a trial, the court held that to justify such closure, the defendant
must establish each of the following;
2) substantial probability that alter-
natives are inadequate, and
3) substantial probability that closure will be
effective.
Absent a standard specifically applicable to pre-trial proceed-
ings, the trial court should look to this case for guidance.
Most cases that have considered the question have found
insufficient justification for closure, confirming the heavy
burden that must be met. Closure of voir dire was not justified
in a trial for extortion where the victim was Senator Eagleton,
United States v. Pulitzer Publishing Co. . 635 F.2d 676 (8th Cir.
1980). Closure of hearings on suppression motions was not jus-
tified in an Abscam trial. United States v. Criden . 675 F.2d 550
(3rd Cir. 1982). Closure of parts of voir dire and various pro-
ceedings during trial of alleged Mafia defendants charged with
RICO violations was not justified. United States v. Brooklier , 685
F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1982). Finally, closure of a pre-trial sup-
pression motion was held not justified in Application of the
Herald Co . . 734 F.2d 93 (2nd Cir. 1984).
Two instances have been found where closure of certain crim-
inal proceedings were held justified. Both involved bail or bond
hearings where statements of the defendant which could be subject
to suppression were likely to be introduced. Since revelation of
such potentially inadmissible inculpatory statements could ir-
reparably damage the defendant's right to a fair trial, closure
was ordered. United States v. Chaara . 701 F.2d 354 (5th Cir.
1983); In re Globe Newspaper Co. . 729 F.2d 47 (1st Cir. 1984).
Thus, in other circuits as well as this one, the burden on the
defendant seeking to close a criminal proceeding is substantial
and not easily met.
Furthe’rmore , the haann to be prevented by closure is quite
narrow. It is not the risk of publicity as such that may justify
closure of a hearing; it is only the risk of prejudicial publicity
that can warrant such an extreme measure. Prejudicial publicity
has been discussed before with regard to Defendant's motion for
change of venue. Prejudicial publicity includes publication of a
defendant's prior criminal record, Marshall v. United States , 360
U.S. 310 (1959), especially if that record includes conviction for
offenses similar to the one with which he is currently charged.
This is prejudicial since it raises the risk that potential jurors
may read of this and, consciously or subconsciously, rely upon
such convictions in forming a decision as to guilt or innocence.
Prejudicial publicity includes broadcast of a defendant's video-
taped confession, a confession that was at least arguably inadmis-
sible if not clearly so, Rideau v. Louisiana , 373 U.S. 723 (1963).
Prejudicial publicity includes publication of other types of
evidence which is directly related to the offense with which the
defendant is charged and yet is or may be inadmissible at trial,
Irvin V. Dowd . 366 U.S. 717 (1961).
No such risk is present here. The hearing sought to be
closed is only to determine whether Defendant King is currently
competent to stand trial. That involves a deteonnination whether
he is "suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him
competent to stand trial. That involves a determination whether
he is "suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him
mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand
the nature *and consequences of the proceedings against him or to
assist properly in his defense." 18U.S.C. §4241(a). This is not
a case where the government seeks to introduce statements already
made by the defendant which are inculpatory and which may be
inadmissible. This is not a case where any evidence concerning
the offense itself need be presented. The sole question to be
decided is whether Lawrence King understands what is going on and
can, if he so chooses, assist his attorneys in preparing his
defense .
The only suggestion of potentially damaging matters which may
be raised (and the tentative nature of this proffer should, by
itself, demonstrate that the substantiality test of Powers has not
been met) that defendant has made is that confidential communica-
tions between Mr. King and these attorneys may be presented. This
is insufficient and, for that matter, irrelevant. It is not
important whether Mr. King gets along with these particular attor-
neys. It is not important whether Mr. King chooses to raise
certain defenses or indeed any defenses to the charges pending.
It is only important that he understand the nature of the charges
against him and be capable — not willing, but capable — of
assisting in his own defense.
Competent psychological experts have had four months in which
to evaluate Mr. King's current functioning and have found him
5
competent. Their testimony can be taken without treading upon
confidential or privileged matters. If defense counsel wish to
inquire into such confidential and privileged matters nonetheless,
then that particular testimony could be taken in camera if the
harm which would result rises to the Constitutional standard set
forth above. Closure of the hearing as a whol^is unnecessary to
achieve such a limited result.
WHEREFORE the government respectfully requests this court
deny defendant's motion to close the competency hearing currently
set for October 17 through 19, 1990.
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
Bys THOMAS rb. THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
Assistant U.S. Attorney
P.O. Box 1228-DTS
Omaha, Nebraska 68101
(402) 221-4774
6
w
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1/ the undersigned/ do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing was served on the following by placing same
9
in the U.S. Mails, postage prepaid, this 9th day of October,
1990:
Jerold Fennell
Attorney at Law
Suite 225, Regency Court
120 Regency Parkway Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114
and hand delivering a copy to:
Steven E. Achelpohl and Marilyn N. Abbott
Attorneys at Law
100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Alan Stoler
Attorney at Law
1823 Harney Street
Suite 1004
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-1908
Michael C . Cox
KOLEY, JESSEN, DAUBMAN & RUPIPER, P.C.
1125 South 103 Street
Suite 800
Omaha, Nebraska 68124
7
FD-302 (REV. 3-10-82)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
- 1 -
Date of transcription 10/5/90
Agent (SA)T
^ •
Investigation .
was telephonically interviewed by Special
Hof the Federal Bureau of
id the following:
b6
b7C
providec
idvised while employed at FRANKLIN COMMUNITY
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (FCFCU) as the Accountant, he remembers the
following regarding access areas into FCFCU and CONSUMER SERVICES
ORGANIZATION (CSO) .
advised the door leading into the
Administrative Assistant's area from CSO was a punch-button lock
combination. Anyone from FCFCU or CSO had access to the area, in
particular those employees who— uexe—reguired to travel back and
advised the combination would
forth between CSO and FCFCU.
be changed periodically. Anyone ueetling to use the bathroom or
eat lun ch in the downstairs area would have the combination.
li
men in tne aownsrairs area wouia nave one coituj±neii-xuij.
Hwas of the opinion all employees had t he punch-bu tton lock
combination which was changed periodically by
advised the area leading into the bookkeeping
where] | all bookkeeping personnel. Assistant
Manager^ and ne ad rei l^s had access was a control-key area. It
was his opinion]"^ |did not have a control-key to get into the
teller and bookkeeping area. | |.s of the opinion
no other
employees would have been given-access to the bookkeeping and
teller area.
I joffice area was normally locked
after no 2 nnal operating hours or FCF CU. During th e operating
)idvised[
hours .
his office was accessible by [
tr was routinely open for access*
1 Secretary to
^dvised inside
"He
, office his desk was always accessi ble and would not have
been routinely locke£L__Hfi_recalls' ' ' ” ' ’ " ’ “
on the west wall of | pffice.
the roll-away file c aoiners w ere locked,
not have access into] pffice unless]
ac cess. Access was conrr oiied by either —
himself L I was of the opinion]
by
of
contents
individuals'
area of
bnly locking the credenza
c ould not remember whether
advised he did •
I tfould a llow him
hi s secret ary, I I or
^ ] office or the
, office was only accessible to the above two
No inventory of extra keys was kept in the key box
FRANKLIN.
Investigation on 10/3/90
at Omaha , Nebraska
by
SA
File # OM 147A^57-1-7 P
Date dictated ?; 10/3:790
tj ^ I * u , ’ *
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBL It is the property of the iIbI and is loaned »
to your agency; it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83)
OM 147A-571
Continuation of FD-302 of
On 10/3/90 Page 2
locked by
was only accessible by
advised
kfter
secretarial area was
ousiness operating hours of FCFCU and
He is of the opinion her area was
not accessible on an emergeniy basis and no extra keys were kept
in the key box area.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) CR. 89-0-63
Plaintiff, )
)
vs . )
)
LAWRENCE E. KING, Jr. and )
ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants, )
SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM ON THE
DEFENDANT'S APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE'S
ORDER REGARDING CLOSURE
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
District of Nebraska
and
THOMAS D. THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
District of Nebraska
and
JOEN GRANT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
District of Nebraska
P.O. Box 1228-DTS
Omaha, Nebraska 68101
//V
In April, 1990, defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr. was found
incompetent to stand trial and coxniaitted to the Federal Medical
Center at Rochester, Minnesota. On August 28, 1990, that facility
returned a report finding him competent. A hearing is to be held
on this issue beginning October 17, 1990. Defense counsel have
asked that this hearing be closed to the public on various grounds.
Magistrate Kopf issued an Order addressing the competing interests
involved, from which defense counsel appeal to this court.
It is important initially to recognize the limited nature of
the hearing. The sole question presented is whether Mr. King is
now competent to stand trial. That is, does he understand the
nature of the proceedings and is he able to assist in his own
defense. See, Blackmon v. Armont r out , 875 F.2d 164, 166 (8th
Cir.), cert, denied . 107 L.Ed. 2d 236 (1989); Beans v. Black . 605
F.Supp. 342 (D.C.Nebr. 1984), aff 757 F.2d 933 (8th Cir.), cert. .
denied . 474 U.S. 979 (1985). To be competent, Mr. King must be
oriented as to place, time, and people, he must be able to recall
events and to relate them, and he must have
sufficient present ability to consult with his
lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational
understanding — and [have] a rational as well
as factual understanding of the proceedings
against him.
Dusky V. United States . 362 U.S. 402 (1960). Justice Marshall
elaborated on this definition in his dissent to denial of cer-
tiorari, White V. Estelle . 459 U.S. 1118, 1125 (1983), saying "The
court also must take into account . . . the defendant's ability to
reason, to remember, to cooperate, and to communicate."
2
Competency does not depend on a defendant's willingness to
communicate with defense counsel — only on the defendant's ability
to, do so. Thus, in Rav v . Duckworth . 881 F.2d 512 (7th Cir. 1989),
the defendant was found competent based on expert medical opinion
even though defense counsel stated that Ray would not answer any
of his questions about the offense. Similarly, in the face of
divergent testimony from psychiatrists on competence, the trial
judge found the defendant competent in United States v. Velasquez .
885 F.2d 1076 (3d Cir. 1989). The court there noted that the
defendant
was merely exercising poor judgment in not
disclosing certain information to her counsel,
but that, however irrational her decisions not
to disclose information were, she was not
incapable of assisting counsel by reason of
mental defect. Id. at 1089-1090.
It is against this background that the request to close the hearing
should be considered.
Because the question presented is so narrow, many of defense
counsel's fears are unfounded. Confidential communications need
not be disclosed; defense strategy need not be revealed. This is
not a case where testing defendant's ability to recall events
necessarily amounts to a confession, as in Rav v. Duckworth , supra.
Thus, the Magistrate's example at the hearing on the motion for
closure is inapposite. He had drawn a parallel between the
publicity likely to arise from the competency hearing and from the
pre-trial release of an inadmissible confession. The difference
is in the degree of prejudice likely to arise in any potential
jurors. Once it is generally known that the defendant confessed
3
to the crime charged, it would be the exceptional person who could
completely expunge that confession from consciousness and render
a verdict solely on the basis of evidence presented at trial. No
such risk is present here. Inadmissibility should not be the test
but one of substantial prejudice. It is true that there may be
publicity, and it may be critical of Mr. King. In view of the
nature of this case, however, it is unlikely to prejudice his
ability to obtain a fair trial before an impartial jury when this
case is finally presented.
The briefs already submitted by the government and by the
World-Herald adequately explore the standards governing closure of
criminal pre-trial proceedings. That issue will not be discussed
again here. Applying those standards, the Magistrate fashioned an
Order that more than amply meets any legitimate concerns of the
defense. In fact, it goes too far.
In ruling five, the government is precluded from calling any
witnesses, even though the government's interest in full and fair
exploration of the issue is at least as great as that of any other
party to this action. There is no reason for such limitation and
none has been provided in the Magistrate's Order. This part of the
Order should be stricken.
One other aspect of the Order is inappropriate. The sole
question is the ability of Mr. King to assist in his defense, yet
he is the one witness permitted to "testify” entirely through other
people. Ruling thirteen should be stricken. Mr. King's own tes-
4
timony is at the heart of the proceeding and should not be present-
ed by hearsay.
With these adjustments, the Magistrate's Order is a reasoned
balancing of the competing interests involved in the competency
hearing, given the limited nature of the question presented, and
should be adopted by the court.
Respectfully submitted.
RONALD D. LINERS
Unite^ Stal!^!5 i^torney
By:
OMA$
THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
By: ^OEN GRANT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing was served on the following by placing same
in the U.S. Mails, postage prepaid, this /o day of October,
1990.
Jerold Fennell
Attorney at Law
Suite 225, Regency Court
120 Regency Parkway Drive
Omaha, Nebraska 68114
and hand delivering a copy to;
Steven E. Achelpohl and Marilyn N. Abbott
Attorneys at Law
100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney Street
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
Alan Stoler
Attorny at Law
1823 Harney Street
Suite 1004
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-1908
r- r . ' •
0 ill
25
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION )
ADMINISTRATION BOARD, as )
Liquidating Agent for FRANKLIN ) CV 88-0-819
COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT )
UNION, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs . ) MEMORANDUM
) and
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR., ) ORDER
)
Defendant, )
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Intervenor. )
This matter came on for ^expedited hearing on January 5, 1990.
The hearing concerned the plaintiff National Credit Union
Administration Board's (NCUAB) 's appeal (Filing No. 180) and the
appeal filed by the United States of America ("government") (Filing
No. 177) , as intervenor, of the Magistrate's January 4, 1990 order
(Filing No. 176), granting in part and denying in part the
defendant Lawrence E. King Jr.'s motion for protective order with
regard to the taking of a deposition of an expert witness, Robert
Kirchner. Present at the hearing were counsel for the NCUAB,
counsel for the government and King's court-appointed criminal
defense counsel.^ At the hearing, on’ its own motion, the court
CL
^King ' s court-appointed criminal defense counsel have been
permitted to enter a limited appearance in this civil action
(Filing Nos. 123 and 159, pages 3-4 & n.4); (CR 89-0-63, Filing No.
40) .
indicated that due to the complexity and interplay of the discovery
matters in the civil action and related criminal action, United
States V. Lawrence E. Kina Jr« . et al. . CR 89-0-63 (D. Neb. May 15,
1989) it would reconsider King's motion to temporarily stay the
civil proceedings in this case pending the resolution of the
criminal action. The court requested the parties to brief the
merits of the NCUAB's and the government's appeals from the January
4, 1990 order of the Magistrate. The court also requested the
parties to brief the issue of whether a temporary stay of the civil
proceedings pending resolution of the pending criminal action
should be entered. The court then ordered that the taking of the
Kirchner deposition be temporarily stayed^ and that all civil
proceedings relating to the Kings and the insolvent Franklin
Community Federal Credit Union be temporarily stayed^ until such
^The hearing was held in both this civil action as well as the
criminal action (CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 129). In the criminal
action, the Magistrate ordered that King's court-appointed counsel
were authorized pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §
3001, et sea. . in this civil action as well as in related civil
actions, to take the Kirchner deposition for the limited purpose
of defending the attorney-client privilege and to incur related
expenses (CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 124) . The Magistrate later denied
(CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 127) the government's motion for
reconsideration (CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 125) of that order The
hearing, therefore, was also held on the government's appeal in the
criminal action (CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 128) of the Magistrate's
order denying reconsideration.
^The Kirchner deposition was temporarily stayed in this civil
action as well as in NCUAB v. Consumer Services Organization, Inc. .
CV 89-0-99 (D. Neb. Feb. 3, 1989) and United States v. Lawrence E.
Kina. Jr. . et al. . CR 89-0-63 (D. Neb. May 15, 1989).
^Other civil cases temporarily stayed were NCUAB v . Consumer
Services Organization. Inc. . CV 89-0-99 (D. Neb. Feb. 3, 1989) and
NCUAB V. Alice P. Kina . CV 88-0-918 (D. Neb. Dec. 23, 1988). The
temporary stay was vacated in NCUAB v. Consumer Services
2
time that the court could review the parties' briefs and rule on
the matters presented in the appeals now before the court.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 6, 1989, Steven Achelpohl and Marilyn Abbott, court-
appointed defense counsel for Lawrence E. King, Jr. ("King") in the
ancillary criminal proceeding, CR 89-0-63, filed a limited
appearance of counsel in this case (Filing No. 123) . Such
appearance was allowed by the court to permit counsel to protect
defendant King's constitutional rights in the criminal action, and
to contribute in some significant way to the defense of the
principal criminal charge, and to aid in their preparation of
King's defense in the criminal action (CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 40)
To date, Mr. Achelpohl and Ms. Abbott continue to represent King
in their limited capacity in this civil action; beyond such
Organization, Inc. . CV 89-0-99 (CV 89-0-99, Filing No. 53) ,
however, and judgment has been entered in this case (CV 89-0-99,
Filing No. 56) .
^In granting defense counsel's application for limited
appearance , the magistrate stated that it was not the court ' s
intention to authorize Mr. Achelpohl and Ms. Abbott to do the
following in the civil case, CV 88-0-819:
1. Initiate discovery;
2. Assist the defendant King in avoiding civil
liability, except to the extent necessary to protect a
constitutional or statutory right existing in the pending
criminal case; or
3. To take any action which would substantially
frustrate the law as it presently exists with regard to
the prosecution and defense of federal criminal matters,
such as, but not limited to, the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the Jencks Act, the Criminal Justice
Act or the like.
Th
(CR 89-0-63, Filing No. 40, at 4).
3
representation, the defendant is proceeding in this action pro
Events indirectly giving rise to the controversy presently
before the court occurred as follows. On October 2, 1989, King
filed a motion for protective order (Filing No. 137) . The motion
referred to a request for production of documents and a set of
interrogatories served by the NCUAB on King as well as a notice of
records deposition served on the law firm of Erickson & Sederstrom,
P.C. The request for production of documents requested production
and the opportunity to inspect and copy all documents not
previously produced or received by King or his previously retained
counsel from Erickson & Sederstrom which relate to the defendant,
Alice P. King, related entities or corporations or any trusts
established by the defendant or Mrs. King (Filing No. 137, Exh.
A) . In the NCUAB 's first set of interrogatories, the one
interrogatory propounded asked for a description, as specific as
possible without disclosing the contents, of any document withheld
from production in response to the above-described request for
production based on the attorney-client privilege or work-product
doctrine. Specific details were requested, e.g., the nature of the
document, details regarding the author, date of writing, addressee,
persons receiving copies, location and custodian, and specific
reasons why the document was withheld from production (Filing No.
137, Exh. B) . In the notice to take deposition of Erickson &
Sederstrom, the deponent was to bring all files and documents
relating to the Kings, related entities or corporations and any
trusts established by the Kings (Filing No. 137, Exh. C) . In his
4
motion for protective order. King objected primarily on the grounds
that such requests violate his fifth amendment right against self-
incrimination .
Also on October 2, 1989 King moved for a stay of discovery in
this case pending resolution of the pending criminal action. King
primarily asserted that allowing the NCUAB, as an agency of the
government, to continue discovery in this civil action would
jeopardize King's fifth amendment right against self -incrimination
and would be in contravention of Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure 15 and 16 (Filing No. 138) .
On October 24, 1989 the NCUAB filed, pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 37(a) , a motion to compel King and the law firms
Schumacher & Achelpohl and Erickson & Sederstrom to produce
documents and answer interrogatories, thereby in essence produce
all documents which would be included in the above-described notice
to take deposition and request for production (Filing No. 141) .
A hearing was held on December 4, 1989 before the Magistrate
regarding the defendant's motion for protective order (Filing No.
137), the plaintiff's motion to compel (Filing No. 141), and the
defendant's motion to stay discovery (Filing No. 138).
On December 13, 1989 the Magistrate ruled on the defendant's
motion for protective order (Filing No. 137) and the plaintiff's
motion to compel (Filing No. 141) only with regard to the King's
assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination (Filing No.
159). The Magistrate denied the plaintiff's motion to compel
(Filing No. 141) in part as to documents with respect to which King
5
claimed the fifth amendment privilege, and granted in part the
defendant's motion for protective order (Filing No. 137) insofar
as the NCUAB was ordered not to seek documents as to which the
fifth amendment privilege was claimed. The Magistrate denied as
moot the motion for protective order as to Erickson & Sederstrom,
as it appeared that that law firm no longer possessed any relevant
documents. He deferred ruling on the attorney-client privilege and
work-product doctrine claims and the request for a stay of
discovery (Filing No. 159) . A hearing as to attorney-client and
work-product issues was then set for mid-January (Filing No. 162)
but has been delayed pursuant to the temporary stay in these
proceedings later entered at the hearing on January 5, 1990 (Filing
No. 179) i
Events more directly giving rise to the instant controversy
began when King, on December 28, 1989, filed a notice to take the
deposition duces tecum of Robert Kirchner (Filing No. 168) on the
NCUAB. Mr. Kirchner, an accountant retained by the NCUAB to
reconstruct the financial records of the failed Franklin Community
Federal Credit Union and used by the government before the grand
jury in the criminal investigation, was directed to bring certain
records and documents set forth in twelve categories (Filing No.
168, Exh. A) . On the same date. King filed a motion for a
protective order, stating that he wishes to take the Kirchner
deposition "to prepare to defend the attorney/client privilege and
6
work-product doctrine” (Filing No. 169) King stated that during
the deposition he would reveal his defense strategy for the pending
criminal action. Therefore, King requested that a protective order
be issued requiring the following: that the deposition be conducted
with no one present other than the attorneys for the parties, the
witness and the court reporter; that all persons present be ordered
not to reveal the contents of the deposition to anyone not present
at the deposition including, but not limited to, the United States
Attorney; that upon completion of the deposition the transcript be
sealed by the court; that if the witness does not waive reading of
the deposition the witness shall not copy or reveal the contents
of the deposition; that any copies of the deposition shall be given
only to attorneys for the parties in this action and be held in a
secure place; that the original deposition and copies remain sealed
until the pending criminal action is terminated — including the
exhaustion of all appeals, all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
and other post-conviction proceedings, if any (Filing No. 169) .
On January 2, 1990 the United States of America, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), filed a motion to intervene
in this action to oppose the entry of a protective order excluding
a United States Attorney from attending the Kirchner deposition.
Also, the United States requested permission to intervene "as
necessary” in later instances when the defendant in the civil
‘^King seeks to defend the attorney-client privilege and work-
product doctrine against a crime-fraud exception argiiment asserted
by the NCUAB. This issue is more fully described in section
11(A)(2)(b) of this memorandum and order.
7
action seeks to depose witnesses who will be called as witnesses
by the United States in the criminal action (Filing No. 170) .
On January 2 , 1990 a hearing was held before the Magistrate
on the defendant's motion for protective order (Filing No. 169) and
the United States' motion to intervene (Filing No. 170). Both
motions were submitted (Filing No. 171) .
On January 3, 1990 the NCUAB filed a motion to quash a
subpoena duces tecum served on or about December 29, 1989 on
Kirchner, requiring him to appear at a records deposition on
January 3, 1990. Among other things, the NCUAB argues that the
documents sought in categories one through eleven are not relevant
to the subject matter of the action nor reasonably calculated to
lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and that the
documents sought are protected by the attorney-client privilege and
work-product doctrine (Filing No. 173) .
On January 4, 1990 an amended notice of deposition duces tecum
was filed requiring Kirchner to appear on January 11, 1990 for the
records deposition (Filing No. 174) .
On January 4, 1990, the Magistrate: (1) granted the
government's motion to appear as an intervenor in this civil case
(Filing No. 170) for the limited purpose of contesting the taking
of the deposition of Mr. Kirchner, and matters related directly
thereto, and otherwise denied the motion; (2) denied the NCUAB 's
motion to quash (Filing No. 173) , except that the Magistrate
provided a procedure whereby the NCUAB was allowed to withhold from
production documents allegedly subject to the attorney-client
8
privilege or work-product doctrine, describe such docviments and why
they should be withheld from production, and King could then file
a motion to compel; and (3) granted in part and denied in part
King's motion for protective order (Filing No. 169), as follows:
(a) the deposition of Kirchner (deposition) shall be
conducted with no persons present other than attorneys
for the parties (excluding the Government) , the witness's
personal attorney, and the court reporter; (b) all
persons present at the deposition are ordered not to
reveal the contents of the deposition to any person not
present at the deposition, including but not limited to
the United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska;
(c) upon completion of the deposition, the deposition
transcript is ordered sealed; (d) if the witness does not
waive the reading and signing of the deposition, the
witness shall not copy or reveal the contents of the
deposition during the reading and signing; (e) any copies
of the deposition shall be given only to the attorneys
for the parties (excluding the Government) to this
action, and then the copies shall be held in a secure
place; (f) the original deposition and copies shall
remain sealed until further order of the court, except
as provided in subparagraph (g) ; (g) King's court-
appointed counsel shall provide a copy of the deposition
to counsel for the Government, upon request, immediately
after Kirchner completes his direct testimony adduced by
the Government in the criminal case; (h) the defendant
King shall not during the deposition inquire about what
Kirchner literally and actually saw, heard or said when
appearing before the grand jury; (i) the defendant King
shall limit all inquiries at the deposition to matters
which are relevant or which may lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence regarding the crime-fraud exception
to the attorney-client privilege claim relating to the
"Erickson & Sederstrom" documents; (j) if necessary, the
undersigned magistrate will be available by telephone or
in person to rule upon the propriety of specific
questions .
(Filing No. 176, at 14-15) . The Magistrate considered his order
final for the purposes of appeal and stayed the order until the
close of business on Friday, January 5, 1990.
On January 4, 1990 the United States entered its notice of
appeal (Filing No. 177) , objecting to the protective order entered
9
in that it denies the United States the opportunity to have any
knowledge of Kirchner’s testimony. The United States also objects
to the order on the grounds that the Magistrate denied the United
States the right to intervene in further instances where King might
seek to depose, for purposes of this civil action, other witnesses
who will be called by the United States in the criminal action.
On January 5, 1990 the NCUAB entered its notice of appeal
(Filing No. 180) , objecting primarily on the grounds that the order
effectively prohibits counsel for the NCUAB from revealing the
contents of the deposition to officers, employees of or general
counsel to the NCUAB, thereby not allowing for internal decision-
making by the NCUAB.
An expedited hearing was then held (Filing No. 179) on the
appeals of the NCUAB (Filing No. 180) and the United States (Filing
No. 177) to the Magistrate's order (Filing No. 176). Posthearing
briefs were requested regarding the merits of the NCUAB 's and the
government's appeals from the January 4, 1990 order of the
Magistrate as well as regarding the defendant's motion to stay the
civil proceedings in this case pending resolution of the criminal
proceeding .
II. DISCUSSION
A. APPEALS
In an appeal from a Magistrate's order, the court must set
aside any portion found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); Local Rule of
Practice 49(A) .
10
L
1. APPEAL OF THE NCUAB f Filina No. 180)
The NCUAB ’s appeal is very limited. The NCUAB primarily
objects to the order only on the grounds that the order does not
presently allow for the disclosure of the contents of the
deposition to Robert Fenner, general counsel to the NCUAB, or James
Stewart, a Washington, D.C. attorney. Plaintiff's Brief on Motion
for Stay and Appeals from the Magistrate's Order of January 4, 1990
[hereinafter Plaintiff's Brief] at 11-12.
King does not oppose a modification of the order to allow for
the review of the deposition transcript by Mr. Fenner and Mr.
Stewart. King asks that Mr. Fenner and Mr. Stewart be subject to
the same provisions regarding nondisclosure as all persons present
at the deposition. Brief of Defendant on Appeals from the
Magistrate's Order of January 4, 1990 and Motion for Stay of Civil
Proceeding at 5 .
Under the circumstances, and in view of the positions of the
parties, I find it reasonable to modify the order to allow for
review of the deposition transcript by Mr. Fenner and Mr. Stewart.
In allowing such review, counsel for the NCUAB is reminded of
paragraph 3(e) of the order which provides that copies of the
transcript be kept secure. Moreover, Mr. Fenner and Mr. Stewart
are subject to the same provisions regarding nondisclosure as are
all persons who will be present at the deposition.
Therefore, the appeal of the NCUAB is granted as to the above-
described modification to the protective order and is otherwise
denied.
11
1 .
2. APPEAL OF THE UNITED STATES (Filina No. 177)
The United States, in its notice of appeal, objected to the
protective order entered because the Magistrate denied the United
States the right to intervene in further instances where King might
seek to depose, for purposes of this civil action, other witnesses
to be called by the United States in the criminal action.
More importantly, the United States also objected to the order
because the United States is denied the opportunity to have any
knowledge of Kirchner*s testimony, and that therefore counsel for
King could obtain a tactical advantage in the trial of the criminal
case, CR 89-0-63.
a) RIGHT TO INTERVENE IN FUTURE SIMILAR INSTANCES
Permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b) is allowable
when a prospective intervener's claim or defense and the main
action have a question of law or fact in common. FED. R. CIV. P.
24(b) . In exercising its discretion on the question of permissive
intervention, the court is to consider whether intervention would
"unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the
original parties." Id .
In the situation regarding Kirchner, the intervention of the
United States did not result in undue delay or prejudice. In order
to determine the question of undue delay or prejudice as that
question relates to this case, in view of its relation to the
pending criminal action, the court must make such determinations
on a case-by-case basis. In denying the relevant portion of the
motion of the United States to intervene, the Magistrate did not
12
I,
do so with prejudice or in any manner preclude the United States
from renewing this portion of its motion as necessary. Moreover,
the Magistrate, in a previously issued order, stated:
While some civil discovery devices may well frustrate the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in a given
circumstance, the court should deal with those questions
on a case-by-case basis. I will leave it to the. United
States to seek a protective order in the civil case if
it believes that its interests are being harmed in the
criminal case should King pro se or with retained counsel
seek discovery in the civil case.
(Filing No. 159, at 4 n.4).
Under the appropriate standard of review, therefore, the
United States ' appeal insofar as it relates to the question of
allowing the United States, at this time, permission to intervene
in future similar circumstances is denied. The portion of the
Magistrate's order denying the ability of the United States to
intervene at this time in the event that future similar situations
might arise is affirmed.
(b) PROTECTIVE ORDER
The Magistrate framed the issues in question as follows:
(1) to what extent should King's court-appointed counsel
in a related criminal case, who have been authorized to
enter a limited appearance in the civil case, be
authorized to probe by way of deposition the knowledge
of the expert witness Kirchner, retained in the civil
case by the NCUAB and used by the Government before the
grand jury, and who is likely to appear in the criminal
case as a Government witness, regarding the actions of
King and the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union
(Franklin) and related entities as those actions might
bear upon the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-
client privilege regarding the so-called Erickson &
Sederstrom documents, when the NCUAB seeks to pierce
King's attorney-client privilege in the civil case; and
(2) to what extent should the Government be precluded
from participating in the civil deposition of Kirchner,
13
or otherwise be prohibited from receiving information
about the civil deposition of Kirchner.
(Filing No. 176, at 1-2).
As determined by the Magistrate, the evidence sought by King
is relevant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). King
seeks the deposition testimony of Kirchner to defend the attorney-
client privilege and work-product doctrine against the crime-fraud
exception^ claim asserted by the NCUAB relating to the so-called
•'Erickson & Sederstrom" documents, documents which were at one time
in the hands of Erickson & Sederstrom, which at one time provided
legal services to King. The crime or fraud urged by the NCUAB in
advancing its crime-fraud exception argument is that ''Mr. King
during 1986, 1987 and 1988 was . . . utilizing the services of
Erickson & Sederstrom to stall the efforts of the IRS to obtain
documents from the Credit Union relating to his receipt of funds
from the Credit Union."® Plaintiff's Brief at 14. Clearly, as an
accountant who reconstructed the financial records of Franklin and
has specific testimony to offer regarding the "amounts of money
[allegedly] misappropriated by or at the direction of the
defendant, Lawrence E. King, Jr." (Filing No. 149), the testimony
of Kirchner and the documents requested are relevant within the
broad Rule 26(b)(1) relevancy standard, see 8 C. WRIGHT & A.
MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2008 (1970 & Supp. 1990) ,
^The crime-fraud exception is found at Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-
503(4) (Reissue 1989).
®The NCUAB 's claimed crime or fraud has not yet been proven;
this claim will be argued at a later date (Filing No. 159) .
14
insofar as King has a right to discover the basis of the NCUAB's
crime-fraud claim in order to defend the attorney-client privilege
and work-product doctrine. As determined by the Magistrate, Rules
26(b)(3) and 26(b)(4) are not violated by discovery regarding
Kirchner .
The Magistrate specifically found in this case, and has also
previously found in the pending criminal case, "that the attorney-
client privilege is so important to the criminal case that King's
court-appointed lawyers must be authorized to challenge the issue
in the civil case in order to adequately defend King in the
criminal case." (Filing No. 176, at 3-4 (footnote omitted)). This
finding is not clearly erroneous and, through the protective order
entered by the Magistrate, the rights of the government in the
criminal case are protected.
The government argues that it would be precluded from
competently preparing Kirchner as a witness in its case-in-chief
in the pending criminal matter as a result of being excluded from
the deposition and not being able to read the deposition
transcript .
King's counsel, on the other hand, asserts that King's defense
strategy in the criminal action will be disclosed during the
Kirchner deposition and argues that there is no disadvantage to the
government as normally King would not be able to take Kirchner 's
deposition and therefore the government normally would not have
access to such a deposition. Therefore, defense counsel argues
that the government is not precluded from competently preparing a
witness because it does not receive access to something to which
it normally would not have access.
The Magistrate is correct in concluding that the government
will not be unduly disadvantaged to place King in essentially the
same position as the government in the criminal action,’ given that
King has no choice but to defend himself in this civil action and
is entitled to take Kirchner's deposition in the civil matter.
If the government were allowed access to the deposition or
deposition transcript, however. King would be unduly prejudiced
because his defense strategy in the criminal case would be revealed
to the government.
Therefore, under the appropriate standard of review, the
appeal of the United States is denied as it relates to the
protective order, and the order of the Magistrate is affirmed.
B. STAY
On June 26, 1989 King moved to stay this civil action until
resolution of the pending criminal case (Filing No. 117) . On July
6, 1989 I denied the motion without prejudice (Filing No. 125) .
On October 2, 1989 King, through his counsel, moved to stay
discovery in this case pending resolution of the criminal case
(Filing No. 138) . A hearing was held on this motion on December
4, 1989, and the motion was submitted (Filing No. 151). On
December 13, 1989 the Magistrate stated that the issue would be
’The government has had the advantage of hearing Kirchner’s
testimony before the grand jury, which King of course has not
heard, and King is not entitled under Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16(a) (2) to Kirchner’s statements to the government until
Kirchner testifies at trial.
16
4 .
1 .
resolved at a later hearing (Filing No. 159) , but this ’’later
hearing” never occurred due to the temporary stay entered in all
civil cases involving the Kings and the Franklin Credit Union on
January 5, 1990 pending the resolution of the matters involved in
this appeal (Filing No. 186, Tr 2:16-22; 3:11-13). Also on January
5, 1990, at the hearing held on this appeal, I requested the
parties to brief the issue of a temporary stay of all further
proceedings in any civil cases involving the Kings and the Franklin
Credit Union pending resolution of the pending criminal matter.
The NCUAB opposes the stay. The United States is in favor of
a stay in the event that the Magistrate’s order granting the
protective order is affirmed, which it has been with one minor
modification made pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Government’s
Statement in Support of Appeal from Magistrate’s Order at 6.
The Constitution does not require a stay of civil
proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. However,
a court may decide to stay a civil action pending the outcome of
criminal proceedings ’’’when the interests of justice seem ... to
require such action.”’ Kashi v. Gratsos . 790 F.2d 1050, 1057 (2d
Cir. 1986) (quoting United States v. Kordel . 397 U.S. 1, 12 n.27
(1970) (citations omitted)). A stay of a civil proceeding pending
the outcome of a related criminal proceeding is ”an extraordinary
remedy for extraordinary circumstances.” See Weil v. Markowitz .
829 F.2d 166, 174 n.l7 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
One test frequently used to determine whether a stay should
be granted in this situation consists of an analysis of four
17
factors: "1) the likelihood of the moving party ultimately
prevailing on the merits; 2) the extent the moving party would be
irreparably harmed; 3) potential for harm to the opposing party if
the stay is issued and 4) whether issuing a stay would be in the
public interest.” Guirola-Beeche v. United States Dep't of
Justice . 662 F. Supp. 1414, 1417 (S.D. Fla. 1987). Even if the
first factor weighed strongly in favor of the defendant, if the
other three weigh strongly in favor of the plaintiff, the
extraordinary remedy of a stay should not be employed. Garcia-
Mir V. Meese . 781 F.2d 1450, 1455 (11th Cir. 1986).
As to the first factor, which has been viewed as the most
important factor, id. , I cannot at this point state my view as to
the possibility of the defendant prevailing on the merits. First
is the matter of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment
(Filing No. 108) and the court's related ruling. The defendant
resisted consideration at this time of the plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment. The defendant's position was that, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f), he was unable to defend his
case for reasons relating to desired discovery and the defendant's
fifth-amendment right against self -incrimination. I denied the
plaintiff's motion for summary judgment without prejudice to
reassertion once the defendant has had a fair and reasonable
opportunity to conduct appropriate pretrial discovery. In
addition, the discovery deadline was to run in February of 1990
(Filing No. 86) . This case was then temporarily stayed on January
5, 1990. The discovery and motion deadlines, therefore, have not
i. '• a-
yet passed. In summary, due to the progression of the case at this
point, I am not in a position to determine the likelihood of
success of the defendant. This factor, therefore, despite its
importance, is a neutral one at this time.
As to the second factor, at this point I see no irreparable
harm to the defendant if the request for a stay is denied. It has
been stated that the court may use, in addition to a stay of
proceedings, other devices such as protective orders, to protect
the rights of persons in King's situation. SEC v. Dresser Indus. .
Inc. . 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied . 449 U.S. 993
(1980) . As I stated above, the protective order entered by the
Magistrate serves such a purpose at the present time. This factor,
therefore weighs in favor of the plaintiff.
As to the third factor, if a stay is entered, the plaintiff
might experience irreparable harm. As the Magistrate stated:
[S]taying consideration of the motion to compel may
irreparably injure the NCUAB, as the NCUAB tells me that
it needs a resolution of the motion to compel prior to
trial and that time constraints, including statute of
limitation and malpractice liability coverage matters,
may preclude the NCUAB from seeking judgment against
others unless the NCUAB proceeds rapidly.
(Filing No. 176, at 8). Therefore, the third factor weighs in
favor of the plaintiff.
As to the fourth factor, the issuance of a further stay would
not be in the public interest. As stated by the NCUAB in its
brief, this is a proceeding brought by the NCUAB acting as a
liquidating agent for the allegedly defrauded Franklin Credit
Union, and standing in the shoes of depositors and other creditors
19
of the credit union. The suit was brought to recover funds to the
liquidating estate of the credit union so that the insurance fund
and creditors of the credit union may be reimbursed to the maximum
extent possible. Plaintiff's Brief at 5.
Related to the public interest factor is the argument
presented by the NCUAB that a stay would violate 12 U.S.C. §
1787 (a) (1) (A) and 12 U.S.C. § 1787(j)” in that if a stay were
entered, the NCUAB would not be able to perform its statutorily
created duties which include collecting obligations to the credit
union and settling or releasing claims in favor or against the
credit union. Id. at 1-2. No authority is cited in support of
this argument, and none can be found which directly supports the
argument as it relates to the cited statutes. However, one court
denied a request for a stay because the court determined that a
stay would have interfered with the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation ("FDIC")'s statutory duties to preserve and liquidate
the assets of a closed insured bank which was acquired by the FDIC
pursuant to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. FDIC v. Interbanca-
Banca per Finanziamenti a Medio Termine . 405 F. Supp. 1118, 1121
(S.D.N.Y. 1975) (citing 12 U.S.C. §§ 1819 and 1823(e) (1969)). The
situation in Interbanca-Banca may be analogized to the one before
this court, and supports the public interest argument of the NCUAB.
^“section 1787(a) (1) (A) provides that a court may not "restrain
or affect the exercise of powers or functions of a liquidating
agent." 12 U.S.C. § 1787(a)(1)(A).
^’section 1787 (j) describes the powers of the board relating
to the liquidation of an insured credit union.
3
j.
The fourth factor, therefore, weighs in favor of the
plaintiff.
In addition to the four-factor test discussed above, the court
should view the particular circumstances of the case in question.
Dresser Indus., Inc. . 628 F.2d at 1375. This court is confronted
with a civil action filed in November of 1988. Therefore, the case
is almost two years old, discovery has not yet been completed and
the motion deadline has not yet passed. Discovery matters are
presently pending. Up until the time that the matters which
constitute the subject of this appeal were before the court, few
if any difficulties arose as a result of the concurrently pending
criminal action. In resolving this appeal, and in balancing the
interests of the parties, I have affirmed the entry of a protective
order with regard to the dispute at issue, with one minor
modification as described in section 11(A)(1) of this memorandum
made pursuant to the agreement of the parties.
There are several pending motions in the criminal action.
I
When the matter is ready for trial, the trial might be lengthy.
Therefore, at this point it is difficult to estimate how a long a
stay in the civil proceedings would remain in effect. Although
King's rights in the criminal case must be defended, "this does not
mandate a complete disregard for the rights of civil litigants."
See General Dynamics Coro, v. Selb Mfa. Co. . 481 F.2d 1204, 1213
(8th Cir. 1973) .
Under the circumstances involved in both this civil action as
well as the pending criminal action, I decline, at this time, to
21
# f
stay the civil actions involving the Kings and the Franklin Credit
Union. I shall, however, reconsider the issue at a later date if
it is raised or if it otherwise becomes apparent to the court that
the proper circumstances exist which would warrant a stay.
Therefore, I now vacate the temporary stay imposed on January
5, 1990 in this case as well as other related civil cases and deny
without prejudice the defendant's motion for a stay of these civil
proceedings pending the resolution of the pending criminal action
involving the Kings.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The appeal of the NCUAB (Filing No. 180) is granted
in that the Magistrate's order (Filing No. 176) is modified to the
extent that Mr. Robert Fenner and Mr. James Stewart may review the
transcript of the Kirchner deposition, and Mr. Fenner and Mr.
Stewart shall be subject to the same provisions of the protective
order regarding nondisclosure as are all persons who will be
present at the deposition, that is that they are ordered not to
reveal the contents of the deposition to any person not present at
the deposition, including but not limited to the United States
Attorney for the District of Nebraska; the appeal of the NCUAB is
otherwise denied;
2. The appeal of the United States of America (Filing
No. 177) is denied;
3. The Magistrate's order (Filing No. 159) is modified
in accordance with paragraph (1) of this order and is otherwise
affirmed;
22
4 . The temporary stay imposed in this case and in other
related civil cases on January 5, 1990 is vacated; and
5. The defendant's motion to stay these civil
proceedings pending the resolution of the pending criminal case,
# f
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Nebraska ^
Post Office Box 1076 ^ , V ’C
Omaha, Nebraska 68101
William G, Cambridge
District Judge
October 24, 1990
I b6
Attorney at Law
505 Center Building
42nd & Center
Omaha, NE 68105
First Assistant United States Attorney
P. O. Box 1228 - DTS
Omaha, NE 68101
United States Probation Officer
P. O. Box 1516 - DTS
Omaha, NE 68101
Re; United States v.
89-0-153
Dear Ms
and Gentlemen;
You are hereby advised of my following tentative findings on
the objections which have been made to the Presentence
Investigation Report (PSI) which has been prepared in the above-
referenced case.
The defendant's objections to paragraphs 51 and 82 of the PSI, — -
all of sai ^ ring gtat nu-h in the letter of the defendant ' s
attorney, to the Court dated October 12,
1990, are sustained, and the portions of the paragraphs so objected
to are stricken from the PSI.
The defendant's objection to a two-level increase in the
offense level under U.S.S.G. 3B1.3 is overruled because the Court
finds that the defendant abused a position of private^ trust in a
manner that significantly facilitated the commission and
concealment of the offense.
The defendant's objection to a two-level increase in the
offense level under U.S.S.G. 3A1.1 is overruled because the
defendant knew or should have known that the victim of the offense
was unusually vulnerable due to mental conditigiy
particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct. . ^
Mr. I
October 24, 1990
Page Two
The defendant's objection to a two-level increase in the
offense level under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 is overruled because the
defendant willfully impeded or obstructed, or attempted to impede
or obstruct, the administration of justice during the investigation
or prosecution of the instant offense.
The defendant ' s ob j ection to the determination that the
defendant is not entitled to a two— point reduction in the offense
level under U.S.S.G. 3E1.1 is overruled because the defendant has
not clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance
of personal responsibility for her criminal conduct.
If you wish to dispute the aforesaid tentative findings and
to be heard with respect to the same, either by way of presenting
evidence or argument, you will be reguired to do so at the
sentencing hearing. If you intend to present evidence, I would
appreciate your advising me in advance of the hearing of your
intent to do so and of the time you will take.^ If the sentencing
must be continued in order to allow you sufficient time to prepare
for the hearing, please advise me of the same and file a motion for
the continuance.
V'
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and
ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants.
CR. 89-0-63
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO CLOSURE
)
By motion dated December 18, 1990, filing #458, Defendant
Lawrence E. King, Jr., has requested that trial of his case be
severed from that of his co-defendant. In addition, in paragraph
three of the motion he has asked that any hearing on it be closed
to the public. No adequate grounds for such closure were stated.
No adequate grounds are present, and the request to close the
hearing should be denied.
The Eighth Circuit has ruled on the standard that must be met
— and by whom — to justify closure of criminal proceedings. U. S.
V. Powers . 622 F.2d 317 (8th Cir. 1980). In affirming the trial
court's refusal to close a trial, the court held that to justify
such closure, the defendant must establish each of the following:
1 )
substantial probability of irrepa-
rable harm to his right to a fair
trial,
substantial probability that alter-
natives are inadequate, and
substantial probability that closure will be
effective.
2 )
3 )
Absent a standard specifically applicable to pre-trial proceed-
ings, the trial court should look to this case fo
F gui
ft8i„y.»9o
Thus, the burden on the defendant seeking to close a crimi-
nal proceeding is substantial and not easily met. Furthermore,
the harm to be prevented by closure is quite narrow. It is not
the risk of publicity as such that may justify closure of a hear-
ing; it is only the risk of prejudicial publicity that can warrant
such an extreme measure. Prejudicial publicity has been discussed
before with regard to Defendant's motion for change of venue.
Prejudicial publicity includes publication of a defendant's prior
criminal record, Marshall v. United States . 360 U.S. 310 (1959),
especially if that record includes conviction for offenses similar
to the one with which he is currently charged. This is prejudi-
cial since it raises the risk that potential jurors may read of
this and, consciously or subconsciously, rely upon such convic-
tions in forming a decision as to guilt or innocence. Prejudicial
publicity includes broadcast of a defendant's videotaped confes-
sion, a confession that was at least arguably inadmissible if not
clearly so, Rideau v. Louisiana . 373 U.S. 723 (1963) . Prejudicial
publicity includes publication of other types of evidence which is
directly related to the offense with which the defendant is
charged and yet is or may be inadmissible at trial, Irvin v. Dowd .
366 U.S. 717 (1961) .
No such risk is present here. The hearing sought to be
closed is only to determine whether Defendant King's trial should
be severed from that of his co-defendant. No showing of harm has
been made. None of the factors noted in Powers has even been
addressed by the defendant. If defense counsel wish to inquire
into confidential and privileged matters, then that particular
testimony could be taken in camera if the harm which would result
rises to the Constitutional standard set forth above. Closure of
the hearing as a whole is unnecessary to achieve such a limited
result.
WHEREFORE the government respectfully requests this court
' deny defendant's request to close the hearing set for December 27,
1990.
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
By: THOMAS D. THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
By: ^JOEN GRANT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of t^ foregoing was served on the following by hand delivery,
this day of December, 1990.
Steven E. Achelpohl
Marilyn N. Abbott
Attorneys at Law
100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney St.
Omaha, NE 68102
Jerold V. Fennell
Attorney at Law
Suite 225, Regency Ct.
120 Regency Parkway Dr.
Omaha, NE 68114
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OP NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
LAWRENCE E. KING, Jr. and
ALICE PLOCHE KING
Defendants,
CR. 89-0-63
GOVERNMENT'S REPONSE TO
DEFENDANT'S THIRD BRADY
MOTION (Filing #460)
By motion dated December 14, 1990, Defendant Lawrence E. King
has asked that the government be required to review all statements
of all persons who have been interviewed in connection with this
case, and evaluate those statements in connection with eight
specific psychiatric designations. Attached to his motion were
copies of various psychiatric definitions for use in this exercise.
This request is charaterized as one for " Brady material." This
characterization oversteps the bounds of that doctrine, and the
request should be denied.
The Brady Doctrine
Brady v. Maryland . 373 U.S. 83 (1963) held that suppression
by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request
violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt
or punishment. Thus, failure on the part of the prosecutor to
disclose exculpatory evidence, where the evidence is material, may
require reversal of a coiji^igEb bn for a new trial. The
standard for materiality is that "there is alreasonable probability
I DEG 2 8 1990
that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result
1 'f7/i "^7
7/i^’
of the proceeding would have been different. A 'reasonable
probability' is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence
in the outcome." U.S. v. Bagiev , 473 U.S. 667, 682 (1985). A
prosecutor thus has a responsibility to disclose information which
has a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the trial
in a way favorable to the accused. This is the extent of the Brady
doctrine.
The court has already declared, filing #76, that Brady
material then known to the government is to be produced by a date
which is to be sixty days before trial. Thus, defendant
will receive impeachment material and any known exculpatory
material on January 3, 1991.
The additional material requested is not Brady material. As
noted previously in the government's response to defendant's second
Brady motion (filing #248) , disclosure of evidence which might tend
to negate defendant's guilt is not required. Thus, where defendant
relied on self-defense to excuse his conduct, and the victim's
criminal history, which showed a violent character, was not
provided by the prosecution, this did not constitute reversible
error. United States v. Aaurs . 427 U.S. 97 (1976). The Eighth
Circuit has explained that the omitted evidence must be material
to the defense, and where it is merely cumulative, a failure to
disclose a polygraph of the key prosecution witness in a rape trial
will not cause reversal of the resulting convictions. Ogden v.
Wolff . 522 F. 2d 816 (8th Cir. 1975).
The result of non-disclosure depends on the importance of the
evidence to the defense and to the trial. Information which casts
doubt on the fundamental fairness of a trial, such as the existence
of perjured testimony, must be disclosed. Failure to do so
mandates reversal of a conviction "if there is any reasonable
likelihood that the false testimony could have affected the
judgment of the jury." Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 103 (1976). Second,
information specifically requested by the defendant must be
disclosed if it might affect the outcome of the trial. Agurs at
104. This is represented by defendant King's first Brady request.
Certain specific statements were requested, and those which
contained potentially exculpatory information were provided. Order
of the court, filing #76. Finally, the prosecutor is duty-bound
to produce without request any information of sufficient
significance that its omission denies the defendant a fair trial.
A gurs . 427 U.S. at 108.
The fact that evidence may be useful, or may somehow influence
or assist in defense strategy, does not trigger a Brady obligation.
The information requested here is outside the scope of disclosure.
Unlike the polygraph results in Ogden v. Wolff , which may have been
unknown to the defense, here all witnesses interviewed by the
government are equally available to the defendant. He knows who
he has had contact. with in connection with the faied credit union,
and who would be familiar with his conduct over the term of the
indictment. Further, he will be provided a list of expected
witnesses by February 11, 1991, in accord with the court's order.
filing #317. If he believes there are persons who can provide the
kind of testimony he is seeking, he is free to make inquiry of
them. In addition, as each person testifies, he is free to ask
whatever cross-examination he deems appropriate within the bounds
of the rules of evidence. At that time, he will also have
available copies of statements the witness has made to the
government, if any. Should this be indequate to allow him to
prepare his defense, additional time to review the statements of
specific witnesses may be granted.
It is not clear that the information requested would even be
admissible, however, much less material and exculpatory. The issue
intent is specifically one for the jury to determine. Thus, in
United States v. Esch . 832 F. 2d 531, 534 (10th Cir. 1988), the
court approved rejection of expert testimony regarding the
defendant's mental state to show she could not have had the
requisite intent. Rule 704(b), Fed. R. Evid. , affirms that no
expert witness may state an opinion regarding whether the defendant
did or did not have the requisite mental state. Yet defendant King
would have the government seek lay witnesses who can provide
statements in accord with complex psychological diagnoses in order
to negate his intent to commit these crimes. Whether he had the
requisite mental capacity to commit the crimes charged is a
question for the jury. It should be left for their capable hands.
The government respectfully submits that this court's prior
Order regarding production of Bradv material is adequate, and
requires no supplementation. The defendant's third Bradv motion
should be denied without hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
By: THOMAS D! THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
By: ^ JOEN GRANT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing was served on the following by hand delivery,
this day of December, 1990.
Steven E. Achelpohl
Marilyn N. Abbott
Attorneys at Law
100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney St.
Omaha, NE 68102
Jerold V. Fennell
Attorney at Law
Suite 225, Regency Ct.
120 Regency Parkway Dr.
Omaha, NE 68114
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OP NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, Jr. and
ALICE PLOCHE KING
Defendants.
CR. 89-0-63
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO
MOTIONS TO CHANGE VENUE
(Filings #387 and #397)
By motions dated October 3, 1990, and October 5, 1990, filings
'■„37 and #397, the defendants Lawrence E. King and Alice P. King
have renewed their motions for a change of venue in this case,
based on prejudicial pre-trial publicity. An evidentiary hearing
has been requested. The request for change of venue is premature,
and the evidentiary hearing unnecessary. Both motions should be
denied.
The Court has already ruled on this issue. Similar motions
were filed on behalf of each defendant in February, 1990, filings
#175 and #178. A full evidentiary hearing was held commencing
April 10, 1990. The Magistrate issued Findings and Recommenda-
tions, filing #316, on May 23, 1990, recommending that the motions
for change of venue be denied without prejudice. On June 13, 1990,
filing #329, the Court adopted those recommendations and ruled that
"the defendants' motions for change of venue (Filing Nos. 175 and
178) are denied without prejudice to reassertion during or after
voir dire."
Trial of this case is currently set for March 4, 1991. The
Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that it is preferable to await
voir dire before ruling on motions for change of venue. United
States V. Bliss . 735 F. 2d 294, 297 (8th Cir. 1984); United States
V. Poludniak . 657 F. 2d 948, 955 (8th Cir. 1981). This is so
because mere existence of publicity, even publicity which may
reflect adversely on the defendant, is not by itself sufficient to
require a change of venue. "The accused is not entitled to an
ignorant jury, just a fair one." Simmons v. Lockhart , 814 F. 2d
504, 510 (8th Cir. 1987). Even the existence of some prejudice
among prospective jurors does not mean that an impartial jury
cannot be impaneled. United States v. Mercer . 853 F. 2d 630, 633
(8th Cir. 1988) . What is required is that the jury empaneled be
impartial, and that can best be determined at voir dire.
A pre-trial change of venue is called for only when the
publicity surrounding a case is so extensive and so inflammatory
raises a presumption that a court would not be able to
of prospective jurors if they said they could
be impartial. Beck v. Washington . 369 U.S. 541, 557 (1961). That
is not the case here. Although reporting of this case has
continued, the stories have been factual and based upon what is in
the public record. Reporting of unrelated allegations has
significantly declined since issuance of the reports of the federal
and Douglas County grand juries in September. Mere reporting of
court proceedings is not inflammatory, and does not warrant a
change of venue.
The government is confident that, as in other prominent cases
tried in the District of Nebraska, voir dire of the prospective
jurors will dispell defendants' fears of jury bias, and reveal an
adequate pool of impartial jurors such that the case may be tried
in Omaha. These motions should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
By: THOMAS D. THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
By: ^OEN GRANT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
!e undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy Oi cne foregoing was served on the following by hand delivery,
this day of December, 1990.
Steven E. Achelpohl
Marilyn N. Abbott
Attorneys at Law
100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney St.
Omaha, NE 68102
Jerold V. Fennell
Attorney at Law
Suite 225, Regency Ct.
120 Regency Parkway Dr.
Omaha, NE 68114
Assista^ U.S. Attorney
r-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, Jr. and
ALICE PLOCHE KING
CR. 89-0-63
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
STATEMENTS (Filing #246)
Defendants. )
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . "
To ensure that this freedom is preserved, the Supreme Court has
ncd a rule excluding from evidence statements made by an
ui^cused which are not voluntary. Determining which statements are
voluntarily given and which are not has consumed much case law.
Since 1966, for custodial interrogation, the starting point in
determining voluntariness is whether or not a person has been
advised of his or her Constitutional rights, the so-called Miranda
warnings. Miranda v. Arizona . 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Even in non-
custodial settings, any statments, to be admissible, must be
voluntary.
Further, the Sixth Amendment provides that every accused
person shall "have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
This right attaches upon the initiation of formal adversary
proceedings against a person. Such proceedings includ^f j^ling^f^ 'j
a formal charge or complaint, a preliminary hearirw
iimJs£iJ^g-.o-f...a-n^
indictment or information, or arraignment. Mich itfaW-^v
DEC 2 6 1990
U. S. , 89 L. Ed. 2d 631, 106 S.Ct. 104, (1986); Kirbv
V. Illinois . 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972). No right to counsel exists
prior to such formal adversary proceedings.
The Defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr., by filing #246, has asked
that four statements he gave, under various circumstances to
' various individuals, be excluded from evidence in this case
because, he says, those statements were obtained in violation of
these fundamental Constitutional rights. Thus, Defendant King
apparently contends that these statements were given after
initiation of formal adversarial proceedings against him so that
his Sixth Amendment rights were implicated, and without a knowing
and voluntary waiver of his Fifth Amendment right to remain
silent. These propositions are untenable.
he First Statement — November 18. 1988
On November 18, 1988, Defendant King was deposed in connection
with a civil case filed against him by the National Credit Union
Administration [hereafter, NCUA] . That deposition was taken at the
offices of his then-attorneys, Ericson and Seder strom. Four of
those attorneys were present for the deposition — William
E. Morrow, Samuel Clark, Mark Peterson, and J. Russell Derr. The
deposition was taken by counsel for NCUA, C. L. Robinson.
Mr. Robinson was accompanied by one employee of NCUA, Gary Vopat.
There were no law enforcement personnel there. There were no
federal attorneys there. There was simply an NCUA employee with
his attorney arrayed against Mr. King and four of his attorneys,
at the office of Mr. King's attorneys.
2
Further, at that time there was no complaint filed against
Mr. King. There was no indictment or information pending against
him. There was no formal adversarial criminal matter pending in
connection with the failed Franklin Community Federal Credit Union
[hereafter, FCFCU] at all. Thus, there was no Constitutional right
to have counsel present under the Sixth Amendment. Since the
deposition was taken at the offices of Mr. King's attorneys, there
can hardly be a claim that he was then in custody. It is difficult
to conceive how such a situation amounts to an "involuntary,
unknowing and unintelligent" statement.
Mr. King responded to questions with clarity and comprehen-
sion. He sought and received advice of counsel during this part
of the deposition. He comprehended the nature of the proceedings
of his responses. The Constitution does not
prevent a person from giving statements which may be found to be
incriminating; it only protects against compelling such state-
ments. If they are freely given, they are admissible. No grounds
for exclusion exist, and the statement of November 18, 1988, should
not be suppressed.
Second Statement — November 23, 1988
The second statement given by Mr. King in connection with the
failure of Franklin was at least given to law enforcement of-
ficers. Two IRS agents met with Mr. King in a conference room at
the IRS District Office. An FBI agent was also present. Also
present were three of Mr. King's attorneys. Thus, once again no
Sixth Amendment right to counsel had yet developed.
Further, no complaint had been filed; no indictment or
information had been filed. No other form of formal criminal
proceeding had been commenced. Thus, there was no Constitutional
right to the appointment of counsel, yet counsel were present so
there can be no claim that any Sixth Amendment right was violated.
There can be no contention that this was a custodial setting,
or that Mr. King's presence or his responses were compelled. The
meeting came about when Mr. King's then-attorney, William E.
Morrow, was provided a target letter. This letter identified
Mr. King as the subject of a grand jury investigation and invited
him to meet with law enforcement officials if he so chose. He so
construction of the word "involuntary" that
^des a statement given by a person in the presence of his
attorneys by his own choice to do so. Thus, this second statement
is not subject to suppression and is fully admissible.
The Third Statement — March 31, 1989
As with the first two statements, no formal proceedings had
yet been instituted, so no Sixth Amendment right to counsel
attached. The indictment was returned May 16, 1989, and all other
formal proceedings were subsequent. This third statement of
Mr. King was given in response to a request by the NCUA's local
counsel, C. L. Robinson, to continue the deposition initiated in
November. The deposition took place in Mr. Robinson's office.
Mr. King was not accompanied by counsel, so Mr. Robinson took care
to ensure that Mr. King understood his right to remain silent. The
following interchange took place.
Q: Mr. King, are you represented by counsel today?
A: No, I'm not.
Q; Mr. Morrow who represented you previously has withdrawn as
your counsel?
A; That's my understanding.
Q: Have you been attempting to find other counsel?
A: To some degree.
Q: Okay. I assume that prior to your previous deposition,
Mr. Morrow advised you generally of your rights in a deposition?
A : Right .
Q: And I assume he advised you if there are questions that you
think your answer to might tend to incriminate you, then you have
the right to refuse to answer those questions?
A: Right.
'■ ■ •“‘tion of Lawerence E. King taken in connection with NCUA
t ^- 143 . Thus, Mr. King was fully advised of his
right to refuse to answer by his attorneys prior to the first
statement, and at the time of the third statement he was still
aware of that right. This is the only constitutional issue
presented, and his presence at this voluntary deposition, his
willingness to answer questions, his comprehension of the nature
of the proceedings and his intelligent and understanding responses
negate any suggestion that his statement is subject to suppres-
sion.
The Fourth Statement — April 25. 1989
On April 25, 1989, Mr. King once again appeared at the IRS
District Office for an interview by IRS agents and an FBI agent.
5
This time he was not accompanied by an attorney. However, the
following exchange took place.
Q: Mr. King, do you understand that you're appearing here
voluntarily?
A: Yes.
Q: And do we have your permission to tape record this
interview?
A; Yes.
Q: You understand that you're not under arrest?
A; Yes.
Q: You understand that you may leave at any time?
A: Yes.
Q: You understand also that you can refuse to answer questions
posed to you?
A: Yes.
rding of interview, pp. 1-2. Again, this
.xox, a custodial situation. No formal criminal proceedings had
been instituted. Mr. King appeared at the IRS offices by his own
volition. The only initiative of law enforcement was to request
the interview. No threats were made, no compulsion of any kind was
imposed. These statments, as with all three prior statements, are
fully admissible at trial.
Conclusion
As the court noted in considering the motion to suppress
statements submitted by defendant King's co-defendant, Mrs. King
(filing #179) , a person is not entitled to formal advisement of
Mirand rights simply because that person is the focus of an
investigation. It is only in custodial settings that that
6
requirement is imposed. Beckwith v. United States . 425 U.S. 341,
344-348 (1976) . Mr. King was not under arrest, nor was his freedom
restricted in any significant way. At each interview, he arrived
and departed by his own means. At two of the interviews, he was
accompanied by counsel of his own choosing. No case has been found
where statements given by the subject of an investigation during
the course of the investigation while accompanied by his attorneys
were suppressed. No case has been found where non-custodial
statements freely given by an intelligent, articulate adult have
been suppressed. In Mincev v. Arizona , 437 U.S. 385, 401 (1978),
the Supreme Court held that the voluntariness of a confession
should be evaluated upon the ’'totality of the circumstances"
involved in each case. This Circuit has identified several factors
to be applied in making that evaluation, in United States v. Rorex ,
F. 2d 753, 755-756 (*th Cir. 1984). Applying those factors to
"pr 3 of these statements demonstrates that there are
no grounds to suppress any of the four statements. They were
freely given by a man well aware of his situation and with advice
of counsel of his own choosing. They are admissible at trial, and
the motion to suppress, filing #246, should be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
THOMAS TD 'i THALKEN
First Assistant U.S. Attorney
0*OEN GRMT
Assistant U.S. Attorney
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, do hereby certify that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing was served on the following by hand delivery,
this day of December, 1990.
Steven E. Achelpohl
Marilyn N. Abbott
Attorneys at Law
. 100 Historic Library Plaza
1823 Harney St.
Omaha, NE 68102
Jerold V. Fennell
Attorney at Law
Suite 225, Regency Ct.
120 Regency Parkway Dr.
Omaha, NE 68114
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the District of Nebraska
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and
ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants.
) CASE NO. CR89-0r63
)
)
)
) AFFIDAVIT OF LAWRENCE
) E. KING, JR.
)
)
)
)
STATE OF NEBRASKA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS)
Lawrence E. King, Jr., being first duly sworn upon oath states
as follows;
1. He is one of the Defendants in this action and this
Affidavit is offered in response to this Court's Order of Septeiaber
28, 1990.
2. In response to question 1(a), for the offices of FCFCU
and CSO located at 1723 N. 33rd Street, Affiant states that the
area highlighted in pink on the attached map constituted his
personal office and secretarial area. Specifically, Affiant's
secretary was Sandy Rhode Prucha and her assistant, Gwen Pierce.
Further, Affiant had three administrative assistants and an
attorney who also performed work of a personal nature for him.
These administrative assistants were Kurt King, Terrance Powell,
and Dan Kane. Further, an attorney named Shanita Spencer also
performed personal work for Affiant. The administrative
assistants, and Ms. Spencer held files within file cabinets and
desks located in or near their offices and work spaces which
related to the Affiant personally and his personal businesses. The
location of their offices are highlighted on the map in yellow.
Affiant had the expectation that both his secretary, her assistant,
his administrative assistants and attorney, Shanita Spencer, would
not disclose Affiant's personal files or those of’ his personal
businesses to any other person except as specifically necessary to
carry out the direction of Affiant.
3. In response to question 1(b) as it relates to the offices
of- FCFCU and CSO located at 1723 N. 33rd Street, the following
information is supplied by Affiant:
a. As to Affiant's personal office, Sandy Rhode Prucha
and Gwen Pierce were allowed to enter the office for purposes of
filing and maintaining the files of Affiant. Additionally,
Affiant's secretary and her assistant were expected by Affiant to
prohibit access into documents filed within their secretarial area
except as expressly permitted by Affiant. The door leading from
the main entry into the FCFCU directly into the secretarial area of
Sandy Rhode and Gwen Pierce was kept locked. Business or social
invitees of Affiant were met by Affiant or his secretaries and
escorted to Affiant's office through the door located on the north
side of the "Kurt King and Terrance Powell area". Employees of CSO
and FCFCU were not permitted to enter Affiant's office for the
files in his office or the secretarial area unless under the
specific direction or control of Affiant or his secretaries during
normal business hours. However, Earl Thomas Harvey, Jr. had access
to keys to Affiant's personal office and all other areas of the
credit union.
b. As to the areas highlighted in yellow in which
Affiant's administrative assistants and attorney Shanita Spencer
worked, files of a personal nature relating to the Affiant were
controlled from disclosure, at his direction, to persons other than
his secretaries and administrative assistants and attorneys.
Affiant also had an expectation that as among his secretaries,
administrative assistants, and attorney Shanita Spencer, files
would not be exchanged except as necessary to carry out Affiant's
specific directions and purposes.
c. As to the areas marked in blue on the attached map,
denoted as personal file storage, access to the file cabinets noted
on the first page of the map in blue was restricted to his
secretaries and administrative assistants. These file cabinets on
the first page of the map were file storage for excess file
material of a personal nature and Affiant expected that access to
these files would be controlled by Affiant's secretaries and
administrative assistants. As to the area marked in blue on the
second page of the map relating to "personal records and items
stored", this area was controlled by Affiant and he had the only
key to the area except as noted above with respect to the access by
Earl Thomas Harvey, Jr. to all keys for the credit ynion.
4. In response to question 1(c), for the offices of FCFCU
and CSO located at 1723 N. 33rd Street, the general public was
allowed to enter without escort of a FCFCU or CSO employee the area
shaded in red on the attached map. Employees of FCFCU or CSO were
allowed into the area shaded in black on the map only if their job
duties specifically related to bookkeeping functions within the
area shaded in black. Other FCFCU and CSO employees were generally
not allowed into this area unless escorted specifically by a
bookkeeping employee. Further, the general public was not allowed
into the area shaded in black. As to Affiant's personal office,
the general public was not allowed. Business or social invitees
were only allowed into the office with the permission of Affiant.
As to all other areas of the credit union, business or social
invitees of the specific employee who held control of an area such
as their own office were allowed, but only with specific permission
or control of that employee except as noted above regarding the
area shaded in black referencing the bookkeeping and teller areas.
Neither the general public nor business invitees or guests of any
employee of FCFCU or CSO had access to any personal files of
Affiant wherever stored, without Affiant's permission.
5. As to question 1(a), (b) and (c) regarding the office of
3
FCFCU and CSO located at 2429 M Street, Affiant did not have any
personal office space or secretarial area or administrative
assistants at this location. The general public as business or
social invitees of the employees at this location were allowed to
enter those employees' offices with the permission and under the
control of the employee. There was a teller area at this address
in which only bookkeeping or teller employees would be allowed and
those employees would not have been allowed to bring the general
public into such area.
6. In response to questions 1(a)/ (b) and (c) for the CSO
offices located at 2505 N. 24th St., Suite 219, an employee at this
office, Judith Carroll, was an administrative assistant to Affiant
and handled a number of personal matters for Affiant.’ The files of
Judith Carroll relating to her activities on personal matters of
the Affiant were expected by the Affiant to not be disclosed to
other persons except at the direction of Affiant and in connection
with carrying out those duties. Affiant's expectation of privacy
with respect to his personal files under the control of Judith
Carroll was the same as described above with respect to his other
administrative assistants.
7 , In response to questions 2 and 3 of the Court's Order of
September 28, 1990, Affiant has examined boxes 54 through 87 which
have been represented to the Affiant and his attorneys as items
seized by the FBI and IRS under the November 4, 1988 search
warrants. Affiant has attempted to the best of his recollection
and within the time constraints imposed to identify within those
boxes items seized which were personal in nature or reflected
substantial personal input of the Defendant. The Defendant has
also attempted to identify, to the best of his recollection, the
location of those items seized on November 4, 1988. Affiant's
review of the "search warrant" items is attached to this Affidavit.
a. Regarding questions 2 and 3 of the Court's Order of
September 28, 1990, with respect to the NCUA's Conservatorship
Order and take-over of the FCFCU, Affiant has reviewed boxes 1
through 6B in the Federal depository which were represented to
Affiant and counsel for Affiant as documents seized by NCUA under
the conservatorship Order. Further, Affiant has generally reviewed
numerous boxes of records housed at the NCUA West Omaha Depository
which have also been represented to have been taken from the
offices of FCFCU and CSO by the NCUA under the conservatorship
order. As to these boxes Affiant attempted to focus on items which
were personal in nature or reflected substantial personal input and
has also attempted to the best of his recollection to identify
where those documents were located as of November A, 1988. This
information is contained in an attachment to this Affidavit.
b. Based upon Affiant's review of boxes 1 thru 6B and
54 through 87 in the Federal Depository along with his general
review of the boxes located at the NCUA's West Omaha Depository, it
appears that the NCUA, pursuant to the Conservatorship Order and
take-over, seized all records, documents and personal property
contained in the office of FCFCU/CSO of the Affiant, other than
those taken by the FBI pursuant to the search warrant. Affiant has
not personally inspected the former offices of FCFCU and CSO as to
whether the NCUA has left documents or possessions in those
buildings and offices. However, notes of NCUA officials and FBI
agents appear to indicate that ongoing review and selection of
files and documents continued for many months after the credit
union closed on November 4, 1988.
c. As to the grand jury subpoena documents obtained by
the prosecutor under the November 14, 1988 grand jury subpoena,
Affiant has no personal knowledge. However, based upon the ability
of the United States Attorney, Thomas Thalken to control access to
both the documents in the federal depository which were taken under
the Conservatorship Order and also those documents of CSO and FCFCU
stored at the NCUA's West Omaha depository, it would appear to
Affiant that all the documents contained within the offices of
FCFCU and CSO have been made available to the U. S. Attorney's
office and the F.B.I. for review and use.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
SUBSCRIBED AND
iENCE E. KING", JR/ /
/ ^ ^
SWORN to before (me this day qf December,
1990.
' kboraht.wmw^e
I My Comm. &(>• Iby
/^jy 'r.’Crf
Notary Public
Drlv«-Thru
Ground Floor Plan
Groun
%r-y njin
^ ^ O I 1 J 4 5
bjx-y Rs-Cj&idit}
^13:eMk£> '^c>r>e^
Boxes at Depository at Federal Building
With respect to the boxes at the Federal Building Depository, which
contain material represented by the Government to have been seized
under the Search Warrants, the following review was conducted:
Lawrence E. King, Jr#.' (LEK)
Franklin Community Federal Credit Union (FCFCU)
Consumer Services Organization (CSO)
BOX 54:
Box 54 contains computer runs, which are not the personal
property of King, nor were they prepared by him.
BOX 55:
Box 55 contains a file labeled Prudential File - Insurance
statements re: The King Company. These are the personal property
of King.
BOX 56:
These documents apparently came principally from Sandra
Rhode's (King's personal secretary) office.
The box also contains what appear to be Bill Hansen files -
investment records. The following are the personal property of
King:
1. Lease - 2441 California St., N.W., Washington DC
3A
3B
3C
2. Maintenance contract on Home - 13232 N. River Road.
Work Contract on River Road Residence.
Work Contract agreements on King Co.
Nebo, Inc. Agreement - Security services; King
I-Go Van Storage - Warehouse receipt - 2
Hotentot Maintenance Agreement
Proposal to King from Hicks Construction re Chateau
Lounge
Wolf Coven '1 Nazr Purchase Order
Furniture Lease between King and Cari Rental
Permanex proposal
Maintenance Agreement from Sears
Advertising Contract - King Co. - re: Clarkson Hospital
Fashion Production
Proposal - North Star Studios re: Room Davidson
List of Potential republican party endorsers
celebrities - in envelope with Kurt King's name on the
outside.
"City of Omaha"
Assessor stubs re; 86 Jeep and 84 Chrysler
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Real estate tax statements - North River Road
Check dated January 29, 1987 (King Co. real estate taxes
- Sam J. Howell.)
Check Stubs and Real Estate tax statements (King
Co. - Koutze Place Property)
Auto License renewal dated March 1986 re: ”85 Merc”.
Memo from Bill Wilson to Dan Kane (probably from Terrence
Powell's Desk)
Completed travel schedules - all documents in file.
Friends list of King - frequently used names.
Memo to Kurt King to William Jennings and all attachments
(secretary's, office in north desk) - probably Kurt
King's desk.
BOX 57:
Most of the documents contained in this box apparently came
from behind Kurt King's desk from files maintained by Sandee Rhode
or Gwen Pierce (Sandee Rhode's assistant). The following are the
personal property of King:
From File FCU - 1987:
Otis & Assoc. - bills for appraisals
King Co. receipt from U.S. Post Office.
From Paid in Cash file:
Omaha Club Bill - 6/30/88
(LEK)
King Co. - Bill from Gettmen & Co.
Handwritten receipt from Chuck Brizendine for Showcase, dated
9/21/88.
Bobbitt's invoices - 9/9/88; 8/22/88
Piccolo's invoice - 8/31/88
Invoice Bickels Meat Center, 9/6/88
Nebraska Plumbing Invoice - 9/13/88
All Food invoices for King Co.
Omaha Press Club Invoice - 9/16/88
Request for checks - 8/19/ and 9/20
Summary of Corp. Card Account (Am. Express) - LEK
Bill for King Co. - 7/14/88
I “GO receipt for storage; 9/8/88
Gettman & Co. - King Co. - 4/27/88
Utility Bill - 2441 California NW - Washington, DC - 6/9 -
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
7/12/88
Invoice - Solid State Electronics - 8/25/88
AT&T invoice - 9/2/88 - King Co.
Packet of food receipts re: King Co.
Wade Management - King Co. 9/6/88
Orkin - King Co. (2)
Invoice - Durham Transfer - Showcase Lounge
Food receipts - King Co.
Mastercard Receipt - 6/29/88
Omaha Press Club Receipt
Davidson's - bill
Culligan receipt
Armstrong Cleaners/receipt
Stoysich Receipt
Trash removal receipts
U.S. West - King Catering
AT&T - King Co. bills (several)
Excel Merchandise - King Co.
Lustre Cleaners - Washington - King Co.
Food Invoice - Grait Food, Rockville, MD.
Kauffman - King Catering
Janousek Florist
King Co. - Petty Cash receipts.
Receipt - Preferred Steaks
AT&T Leased equipment bill
Blue Ribbon Prestige Receipt - LEK
Misc. Receipts - King Co.
University Club Receipt
Citibank Mastercard - 6/17/88
Time Sheet - Don Parks
Auto Repair Receipt
J's - Jewels - 6/3/88
Terminex - Showcase - Invoice
Bickels Meat Center - Invoices
Petits Pastry Receipts
Memo re: party of Nancy Bounds for Bob Kerrey.
Invoices - Washington Park Gourmet
Durham Transfer ~ Showcase
Mastercard Bill - 6/27/88 (King Co.)
Expandable large brown envelope 1988 invoice file:
Generally, all invoices showing King Co., Cafe Carnivale, or
the Showcase Lounge, Masa, Inc., AKASAKA, Lawrence King, and his
immediate family, and all invoices showing delivery of goods to
Washington, DC, and to the entities and persons described above are
the personal property of King. This expandable envelope is
organized alphabetically, and the personal invoices, to the extent
possible, are described as follows:
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
a . None
b. All documents
c. All documents
d. None
e. invoices identified to Mr. King, his immediate
family and his personal businesses
f . All docviments
g. All invoices of the Greenery in the name of Larry
King or Cafe Carnivale.
h. All of the Horn invoices with respect to the
Showcase
i. All invoices in the name of King Company, the
Hockenberg invoices (King Co) , all artists
contracts in connection with performances at the
Showcase, the Helmsley Palace invoice dated
2/10/88, the invoices of David Hunt (repairs for
King Co); bills of Joyce Mennig with respect to the
Penthouse for Mr. King personally, invoice of
Hortrdard Coaches, Inc. dated 6/2/88 and the
Helmsley Palace invoice and all attachments from
6/4/88 to 6/7/88.
j. 2/18/88 Invoice of Jay's Manufacturing, invoice
dated 1/3/88 in name of Lawrence M. King, Jr. dated
1/3/88, invoice dated 2/1/88 from Jacobson Fish
Co., I-Go Van and Storage invoice dated May 2, 1988
- LK c/o of Franklin Credit Union., I-Go Van and
Storage invoices dated 2/22/88, 4/21/88, 2/19/88,
Ibsen Costume Gallery invoice dated 2/12/88, Bill
of Dr. Wm. Johnson, marked paid, 2/21/88; all
Janousek Florist bills; Douglas D. Jasa and Assoc,
bill for the Brownell Talbot Fund raiser for LEK
and Check of October 4, 1988 to Douglas D. Jasa and
Assoc., with attached statement dated 9/21/88 from
Douglas D. Jasa and Assoc., Inc.; bill of Immanuel
Medical Center, dated 4/24/88; I-Go van & Storage
invoices dated 7/27/88, 9/28/88; 2 Invoices from
Jackson National Life Insurance Company with
respect to Alice G. King, dated 6/16/88 and
7/13/88.
k. Statement from Kiwanis Club of Omaha, Inc. dated
2/29/88; invoices from Kauffman Pastry Shop;
statement of KMG Enterprises with reference to Cafe
Carnivale from 1/2/88 to 1/31/88; invoices from K-B
Foods, Inc., 8/4/88; Invoice and request for check
with regard to Klopp Printing Co. ; invoice of Klopp
Printing company dated 5/31/88 and request for
4
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
check attached; Security deposit agreement of
Knudson Investment Co . , Inc. dated with
respect to the Orpheum Tower apartment; invoice of
Kaleidoscope dated 1/27/88 ^ with attached
handwritten note; various KamAir invoices (Mr. King
cannot recall without reference to a travel
schedule which of the KamAir invoices were personal
and which were political, and which were business
related [related to Franklin or CSO]); invoice of
Kama, Inc. 2/29/88 and other invoices attached
thereto; all J.D. Ice Service invoice and all Omaha
Ice Co. invoices, and all Kama, Inc. invoices, in
reference to Cafe Carnivale and the Showcase; all
Kiwanis Club invoices. Check dated 10/4/88 to the
Kiwanis Club of Omaha; a memo regarding "Plan of
Action”, showing payments with reference to the
Showcase and Janice King; Letter of 9/28/88 from
Lou Paciocco to Shanita Spencer, with reference to
La Cage Aux Folles, and attached check; invoice of
Kam Contracting dated 8/12/88, with reference to
King Co.
Statement of K. V. Lyda, dated 5/24/88; original
invoice to L & M Services from Pegler dated
7/18/88; monthly statement of ^ Landons dated
4/30/88, in the name of LEK, Jr.; invoice of Landon
Livery marked paid 7/29/88; statement of LK's tree
service, for tree trimming dated paid 10/7/88;
invoice from LTD Commodities, Inc. dated 9/27/88
and attached check; all invoices from Landscape
Projects, Inc., and one attached check; invoice
dated 3/31/88 relating to advertising from unnamed
vendor in name of King Co. Catering; LK*s tree
service invoice marked paid 9/15/88; all Landon 's
invoices; all invoices from Larimere*s Inc.;
handwritten Lippett Bottle Shop invoice marked paid
2/16/88 on yellow sticky; invoice from Little
Professor Book Center dated April 7, 1988 with
reference to King Co. and the Brownell Talbott fund
raiser; all Lovgren Advertising, Inc.. invoices; all
Leopard Productions, Inc. invoices; all invoices
from the Lincoln University Club;
All Mastercard bills; all invoices, checks and
documents, which bear the name of Lawrence E. King,
Jr.; all Menck and McGovern Glass Co. invoices
bearing the name Lawrence E. King, Mr. King
residence. Cafe Carnivale, Showcase, and King Co.;
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
all McClellan Audio Service invoices; all invoices
of Marie Midland Automotive Financial Corp. ; all
invoices of Metz Baking Co. ; all invoices of the
Maids of Capitol Hill; all invoices of Max I.
Walker; all invoices of Michelle Collections, Inc.;
all Master Lease Corporation invoices relating to
communications at 2021 Wirt Street only, ; invoice
of Mark Turner Flowers, Ltd. dated 2/15/88,;
invoice of Midwest Video, dated 1/18/88; all
invoices from Martins, of Washington, DC, ; invoice
dated 6/20/88 to Mr. Larry King with reference to
flower arrangement for Bemis Fund raiser; invoice
dated 6/20/88 showing address of 2021 Wirt Street;
invoices of Massachusetts Life with reference to
Lawrence E. and Alice G. King; all invoices of the
Maids of Omaha, that do not relate to the Franklin
Credit Union, North or South.
n. all invoices from Nash Auto Wax; all invoices of
Nebraska Plumbing showing job locations other than
Franklin Credit Union; all invoices of Northwestern
Bell; request for check, dated 4/29/90 with
reference to Nancy Bound's International; memo from
Kurt King to Mr. King, dated 1/8/88, with reference
to party room at Orpheum Tower, 15th floor, ;
handwritten invoice of Hassan Majid, marked paid
2/5/88; invoice of New York Fur Shop, hand written
and stapled to blank envelope, marked paid
2/24/88,; invoice of Nebraska Wine and Liqueurs,
dated 5/3/88; manufacturing invoice, dated 7/31/88;
invoice of Sign Works, dated 4/14/88; invoice of
the Nation Wide yellow pages, marked paid 4/6/88;
o. Invoice of Schneider's Liqueur Store (Misfiled) in
the amount of $21.06; invoice of Nationwide Yellow
Pages marked paid 4/6/88; Request for check for the
Omaha World Herald, dated 9/29 and attached check
and invoice; Invoice from Omaha Jewelry Company
dated 8/25/88; all Orkin Pest Control invoices,
from Landover, MD; All OPPD electric service bills
in the name of King, Allen's Showcase, the Showcase
Lounge; all invoices of Old Market Limousine
Service; invoice of Omaha Antique and Job Plating
Co. dated 2/2/88; invoice statements of the Omaha
World Herald dated 6/30/88 and attached check dated
8/10/88; all invoices from Admiral Limousine
Service dated; all checks attached to any invoices
of Old Market Limousines Service; all other
6
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
invoices for limousine; all invoices of the Omaha
Press Club and attached checks; all statements of
the Omaha Club.
p. Terminix Pest Control invoices with respect to
13232 North River Road and King's Catering marked
paid 5/6/88; any similar invoices of Terminix Pest
Control for King Company, Cafe Carnivale or
Akasaka; all invoices of Pegler Sysco Food Services
Co., and any attached checks; all invoices of
Petitt's Pastry; all invoices of Panache Catering
and attached checks; all invoices from Piccolo's
Florists; all time sheets of Donald M. Parks;
invoice of Pittman Animal Hospital marked paid
3/24/88; all invoices from Potomac Electric Power
Company; all invoices from Pacemaker Pools of
Omaha, Inc.; invoice of Opera Omaha dated 1/28/88
to King Company; all invoices of P.J. Morgan Co.
r. All invoices of Russell of Georgetown, Inc.; the
request for checks dated 8/11/88 to secure double
rooms at Red Lion for Showcase artists; request for
checks dated 7/26/88; invoice of Mayor Bernie Simon
for fund raiser on behalf of Ray Simon, dated paid
3/4/88; all invoices of Regniers, Inc.; all
invoices and checks to Ridgewells Caterers, Inc. of
Washington, DC; statement of the Ritz Carlton dated
5/3/88 and all attachments; invoice of music for
disklavier marked paid 5/10/88; statement of the
Ribster to King Co. dated 9/3/88; invoice of
Reliable Locksmiths of Washington, DC dated 8/5/88;
invoice Rigel Corp. dated paid 7/6/88.
s. The invoice from Standard Printing Company dated
4/22/88, with reference to product shipped to
Citizens for America attention Abigail Trolman;
invoices of Standard Printing Company dated 7/20/88
with reference to products shipped to Carmen and
Hugel, with attached request for check and copy of
check; political fund raiser with respect to
Senator Labedz, dated paid 3/22/88; invoice of John
Scofield Savage, dated 6/13/88 with attached
invoice from Johnson Hardware Co.; invoice of John
Scofield Savage, AIA dated 7/14/88; invoice of
Security Equipment, Inc., alarm specialist, dated
12/30/87; invoices of Security Equipment, Inc.,
dated 3/31/88 and 4/7/88; invoice of Security
Equipment, Inc. dated 4/7/88; invoice of John
7
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Scofield Savage dated 5/20/88; invoice of John
Scofield savage dated 4/11/88; all invoices of
Security Equipment, Inc.; invoice of John Scofield
Savage dated 4/11/88 and all attachments; all
invoices of Statewide Limousine, Inc. ; invoice of
Standard Printing Company dated 6/15/88 and all
attachments; invoice of Servicemaster dated paid
10/13/88; note to Sandee dated 8/26/88 to pay Sam
Super Service $75.08; invoice of Sidney's
Orchestra's Inc., dated 5/23/88; invoice of
Servicemaster of Arlington dated 9/12/88; invoice
of Speedy Inc. dated 9/14/87; invoice of Spic and
Span Linen Supply, Inc. dated 6/30/88; invoice of
the Surfside Club marked for a total bill of
$25.00; Statement of Surfside Club marked paid
4/11/88; Statement of the Surfside Club dated
5/21/88 marked paid 5/26/88; all invoices of Sweet
Sensations, various invoices of insurance companies
dated 8/10/88 and all attachments; all statements
of Skyharbor in the name of Alice King; invoice
from Sam's Super Service marked paid 7/19/88; Sears
charge statements in the name of King showing
payment of $305.14 on 8/12/88; invoice of Stoyisch
House of Sausage dated 4/28/88; envelope of the
Salvation Army showing $100.00; invoice of
electronics invoice dated 3/28/88, telephone note
to Sandee dated 1/8 from Kathy, showing amount paid
to Sam's Super Service on 1/8/88 of $573.90; all
invoices of Simon Meats; invoice of Servicemaster
dated 9/20/88; invoice of Servicemaster of
Arlington, dated 9/20/88; request for check to S &
P Images for invitations to La Cage, dated 10/6/88
and attached invoices; Request for check dated
8/10/88 to Marlena Shaw; Request for check to S & P
Images, dated 8/30/88 for King birthday party, with
all attached invoices and checks; Request for check
to S & P Images dated 10/1/88 with reference to
three month calendars for Showcase.
All service invoices of Terminix Termite and Pest
Control; all statements of Travato's dated 9/4/88;
all statements of Topp's; all statements of
Terrell's flowers and attached checks; statement of
Target marked paid 4/22/88; invoice of Technical
Services, Inc. dated 1/18/88; copy of receipt
marked paid 3/24/88 with reference to Twin Tower in
the amount of $1,535.00, handwritten statement of
Twin Tower marked paid 1/20/88 in amount of $3,070;
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
envelope marked Charles delivered to; Twin Towers,
check stub 10/24/88 with reference to Twin Towers
in the amount of $2,175.00.
u. Invoice of United Van Lines dated 3/18/88; invoice
of United Security, Inc. dated 12/4/87 with
attachment; invoice of United Rental dated 3/29/88;
invoice of USA Today dated 2/20/90 and marked paid
3/1/88; invoice of Upstairs Dinner Theater dated
10/13/88; Visa statement dated 9/7/88 marked paid
10/4/88; letter of 11/11/88 from Negleatha Johnson
to Mr. King; all invoices of US West Communications
with reference to service at the following
telephone numbers: 451-1617, 393-2825., 451-6016,
451-3062, and 344-8544; all invoices from US West
Cellular.
w. Invoice of Yaffe Printing Co. dated 12/23/87 and
attachments; all statements of the Wardrobe for
Men; all statements for Waste Management of
Nebraska; invoice marked paid 9/8/88 from Wm A.
Wilson for Fairfax, Virginia, and attachments;
Billing stubs of weekly pickup service (garbage and
trash hauling) ; invoice of Williams Printers and
Publishers dated 9/30/88; request for checks to
Walt Reeder Productions in the amount of $7,500
dated 10/18/88, and attachments; Gift subscription
invoices of Mrs. Alice King marked paid 4/1/88;
handwritten sheet identifying "Women’s Addition" in
the amount of $1,608 marked paid 3/24/88;
Statements of Amway products in the name of Alice
King; invoice of the Washington Post, for the
billing period 8/1/88 through 9/25/88; bill from
Pisces Lounge dated 2/29; gift subscription
invoices in the name of Alice King from Fairchild
Publications dated 2/17/88; invoices of Amway
Products No. 827904,903, and 827881; all invoices
of Washington Park Gourmet.
MISCELLANEOUS:
Request for checks to Sandy for R.D. Waller dated 4/29
and all attachments.
Request for checks to Sandy for R.D. Waller dated 6/17;
Request for checks to Sandy dated 5/16/88, for Mid
America Council of Boy Scouts;
Invoice from Yonkers, Inc. for 60 centerpieces dated
5/10;
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Memorandum to Sandee from Roy Nelson dated 3/23/88 with
reference to ••checks".
Memo to Sandee from Pete with reference to equipment for
Ahmad Jamal, marked paid 5/20/88.
Time sheet of Don Parks marked paid 6/23/88.
All requests for checks from Judy Carroll to Sandee, and
all attachments to said requests for said checks.
Four memos to Sandee ' from Pete with reference to
instrument rentals.
Memo to Sandee from Judy Carroll marked paid 4/19/88;
Handwritten note to Mr. King dated 4/24/88 from Russells
of Georgetown, re: bill of $554.58;
Timesheet of Donald M. Parks for a period from 7/1/88 to
7/30/88;
Visa receipt of Dan Kane payable to Olivia House in the
amount of $344.58;
Phone memo to Mr. King showing YWCA $100 donation;
Telephone slip to Sandee dated 7/8/88 showing payment
dated 7/8/88;
Handwritten note on small yellow sheet with reference to
Ridgewell Caterer's, Inc. marked paid 3/18/88;
Yellow handwritten page with reference to Leopard's
Productions, Emmy Gifford Theater, and Peony Park, marked
paid 5/9/88;
Fund raiser for "Hal's campaign debt" with yellow sticky
attached;
Small note on card in name of John Helms showing amount
of $445.00 paid 8/3/88;
Telephone slip to Sandee from John Helms showing $350
paid 4/5/88;
Yellow sticky on name of FCFCU showing Pete Hall, paid
4/22/88 in the amount of $300.00
Telephone slip for Sandy from Joyce Reeves, showing paid
5/10/88;
Memo to Mr. King from Judy Carroll re; prices on ads in
the Omaha Star and Omaha World Herald.
Phone memo to Sandy from Joe Rossito, showing paid
2/26/88;
Small yellow handwritten note to Gwen showing payments on
8/26/88;
Note showing Shawn Dorcy, paid 6/8/88 with blue FCFCU
Sticky showing name of Pete Hall, paid 4/18/88.
Yellow note showing name R.D. Waller, Showcase in the
amount of $100 paid 4/20/88.
Telephone slip to Sandee for payment to Joyce Mennig in
the amount of $284.92 dated 4/22/88.
Note to Sandee reference Mennig, showing paid 4/8/88.
Blue sticky of FCFCU showing B' Leone Hair Studio paid
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
4/11/88. ^ ^
Yellow note Joe Rossito with attached telephone slip
dated 4/20/88 showing paid 4/20/88. ^ „
Small white sheet showing bill for parties from Mrs.
£]s s e<^
Telephone slip to Sandee from John Helms dated May 2
quoting bill of $925.00. . .
Small yellow paper note with Yolanda Pazimino, with
reference to payment of 3/18/88 for $310.
Square yellow note with reference to 16.5 hours times 5
for Eric Jones shown paid 8/12/88. ^
Small yellow sticky in amount of $169.50 for B Leone
shown paid 6/16/88.
Small yellow sticky showing paid 4/27/88 -
Note to Sandee from Jenice, with reference to Ebony
Fashion Fair in amount of $200 shown paid 5/4/88.
Note to Sandee dated 9/14/88 from Barbara Moore for
payment for Sylvia Wilson.
BOX 58
The following documents are personal to King;
All documents contained in the file of Judy Carroll
denominated "Contracts Local Groups", contained within a
transparent binder with the notation "Room 1, Contracts
and related financial papers for "Showcase Lounge"".
BOX 59
Box 59 was kept under the control of LEK's secretary, Sandra
Rhode and is comprised of more 1988 invoices, again classified by
letter. Those personal to King are as follows;
a. All invoices from the American Linen Supply Co. and
accompanying checks to the American Linen Supply Co. ; the
orange small sheet identifying the Arirang Club and "Mr.
King account" showing a balance of $1,800 and comprised
of $1544.66 plus gratuity; the invoice of the Knights of
Aksarben dated 2/88 in the amount of $1,500 plus
attachments, small white tape from Giant Food dated
7/25/87; all Abraham Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc.
invoices and attachments to said invoices relating to all
work done at 13232 North River Road, 2021 Wirt, and the
Showcase Lounge; all invoices from Germaine Atterbury
("Meals from the Heart"); all bills relating to credit
cards of Amoco, all invoices of AAA Rent relating to King
Company, Cafe Carnivale and Showcase; all American
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Express account statements, attached checks, billing
slips and related docusents, relating to accounts held in
the^^nane of King; all Armstrong Cleaners and iaundry
Seoices relating to services for laundry Piff «
all locations other than 1723 No. 33rd St.,
Omaha invoices of King Co., Cafe Carnivale and Showcase
Lounge; all invoices of Automated Systems, Inc. which
refer to "King Co.”; invoices of ^cura of Omaha dated
12/21/87, 9/30/87, 2/8/88 With attached blue FCFCU
sticky, 1/21/88, 12/14/87, 1/6/88, 12/31/87, 3/25/88,
10/26/87; All Makes Office Equipment invoices dated
3/28/88, 2/9/88 providing for the ?oods to be shipped
Kinq at 2021 Wirt, and a second invoice dated 2/9/88,
shSSing shipped to King at 2021 Wirt, 2/2/88 providing
for shipment to 2021 Wirt St., 5/16/88 providing for
shipment to Greg Sapp at 2021 Wirt, ®
shipment 2021 Wirt st. to Sapp, 6/2^88 invoice
shipment to Greg Sapp at 2021 Wirt St., |
shioment to Greg Sapp at 2021 Wirt St., 7/14/88 for
shipment to Greg Sapp at 2021 Wirt at
Ames Florist relating to King Co. , the King house a
Wirt” the “King House”; Statement account for music to
CaS ia^!:?varrlated 3/1/88; bill of Piano Service dated
in /87; the Azteca dated in 88 with attachments, AT&T
invoice dated 10/2/88 marked paid
Arenz Drapery Barn marked paid 1/88 and attachments,
invoice of Ames Florist dated 7/27; unidentifiable
statement in the amount of $1,013.00;
attachments of Anderson Fire Equipment Co., Inc., dated
3/31/88; request for check to Alpha Kappa -Alpha, marked
paid 8/3/88; invoice from Atlas Awning and Manufacturing
in the amount of $180 marked paid 4/25/88; Invoice of
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority marked paid 1/22/88;
Sandy from Keith, marked paid 1988; invoice of the AEI
Music dated 4/1/88; invoice of Armstrong Cleaners and
Laundry dated 4/4/88; invoice of Ambience, Inc. dated
9/17/87;
all invoices of the Byrne Law Firm relating to Masa Inc. ,
Akasaka, Showcase and the King Co.; invoices of Bell
Atlantic, invoice dated 9/3/88; invoice of Bobbitt s
custom Framing of Larry's dated 1/29/88 with green sticky
attached ;
invoice of Carmen and Hugel dated 10 / 4 / 88 , marked paid
10/11/88 and cashed check; invoice of Claudia's mariced
paid 8/18/88; invoice of Central High School marked
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
2/24/88; invoice of Columbia Mirror and Glass dated
6/20/88; invoice of Carl Jarl security systems dated
3/29/88; note of card of Mr. King's Cafe Carnivale marked
paid 8/16/88.
Invoice of Doui Dominick fashions dated 8/8/88; all
Davidson's invoices contained in the D file in Box 59;
check dated 10/11/88 to the order of DanGuard, Inc.;
invoice of DanGuard, Inc. dated 9/29/88 with attachments;
statements of Douglas 0. Desheasor, DDS, showing dental
work for LEK and APK, and showing paid on 2/18/88; all
Diner's Club invoices, statements and any corresponding
checks; all invoices from the District of Columbia
Natural Gas; statement of 7/5/88 of the Exchange Club of
Omaha; small white card showing Dance Ellington paid
$15,000 - 1/28/88; invoice of Durham Transfer dated
8/15/88 and attachments; all invoices of Dairy
Distributors Wholesale; invoice of Daily Word showing
paid 3/8/88; invoice of Data Documents dated 2/29/88; all
water and sewer bills from the Dept, of Public Works from
District of Columbia; invoice of Duncan Aviation showing
paid 7/20/88; all invoices of Exchange Club.
Note of Esther Essex for 1/29 luncheon paid 2/24/88;
letter of 6/13/88 from J. Russell Derr to LEK, Jr.,; all
invoices of Excel Merchandise and Novelty Co. identified
to King Co. ; all bills and correspondence and attachments
of the law offices of Erickson and Sederstrom; check of
3/23/88 to the Emmy Gifford Children's Theater and all
attachments; Eggers Personnel and Consulting invoice to
Cafe Carnivale dated 12/28/87 and all attachments.
two invoices from FBG Service Corp. dated 9/15/88 -
Service location of First National Bank Building and the
second with respect to King special - 2021 Wirt St.,
Omaha, Nebraska; invoice of FBG Corp. dated 12/31/87
identified as King special residence security; FBG
Invoice dated 12/31/87 with respect to Bemis Art Gallery;
FBG Service Corp. invoice dated 12/15/87 with respect to
King specials - 13232 North River Road; FBG invoice dated
3/31/88 showing service location 13232 North River Road;
attached check dated 7/25/88 to the order of FBG Service
Corp. in the amount of $357.50. FBG Service Corp. dated
1/31/88 with reference to service location of LEK's
residence special at Twin Tower; FBG service Corp.
invoice dated 1/15/88 with reference to service location
at LEK's residence; FBG Invoice dated 4/14/88 showing
service location of King Special 13232 No. River Road;
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
FBG Invoice dated 4/22/88 showing service location at
King's special "Prince's Showcase"; FBG Invoice dated
3/14/88 showing service location of King Special 1733 No.
33rd St.; FBG Invoice dated 2/15/88 showing service
location of LEK's residence at 13232 No. River Road; FBG
invoice dated 2/4/88 showing King's Catering at 2021 Wirt
St.; FBG invoice dated 4/7/88 showing service location at
Simon Showcase; FBG Service Corp. dated 6/28/88 showing
service location as King's special at 13232 N. River
Road; FBG invoice dated 7/29/88 showing service location
as King Special at 2021 Wirt; FBG invoice dated 7/29/88
showing service location at King Residence 13232 N. River
Road; FBG invoice dated 8/8/88 showing security service
at King residence at 13232 N. River Road; FBG Service
corp. invoice dated 4/30/88 showing service location King
Special Cafe Carnivale; FBG invoice dated 12/14/87
showing King special at 13232 N. River Road; all invoices
with attachments of Floral Concepts by Daniel Janosek and
Co. ; invoices of Farmer Insurance Exchange “ invoice for
renewal term 10/5/88 thru 4/5/89 and attached check in
the amount of $423.10, invoice for term 10/6/88 thru
4/6/89 showing paid 9/19/88 in amount of $1,013.30, and
accompanying check of 9/19/88 in like amount; invoice for
renewal term 11/1/88 - 5/1/89 with respect to 1987
Caviliar showing paid on 10/13/88; invoice for renewal
term 6/30/88 through 12/30/88 with reference to '86
Cherokee shown as paid 6/16/88; optional payment plan
reminder notice shown as paid 2/9/88; important
expiration notice dated 4/12/88 shown paid 4/18/88;
invoice for 1987 Mercedes with renewal term of 4/6/88 to
10/6/88 shown as paid 4/11/88, invoice with reference to
•86 sport wagon for renewal term 11/6/88 through 5/6/89;
all invoices of the French Cafe, Inc.; all invoices of
Farrell Gas, Inc.; all invoices of Food Services of
America and corresponding checks; remittance advice of
Federal Express shown as paid 8/17/88; invoice of Furey
Heating and Air Conditioning dated 2/26/88; invoice of FF
Waters, Caterers dated 5/18/88; portion of bill of
Federal Express to Dan Kane showing shipment 5/6/88 bill
dated 5/23/88 from Dan Kane to Gerald Carmen; Federal
Express bill dated 4/11/88 showing as paid 4/19/88;
Federal Express bill dated 8/15/88 showing as paid
9/21/88; portion of Federal Express bill dated 8/29/88
which effected delivery from LEK, Jr. to Ms. Shyayla
Simpson, Ashland; Federal Express bill dated 8/22/88
Invoices of Gatcho Electric as follows: 59337, 59338,
monthly statement of Eric Gatcho Electric shown as paid
4/9/88, invoice #57418, 57503, 57504, 57419, 57567,
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
57565, 57862, 57657, and monthly statement shown as paid
6/30/88; monthly statements of all vendors relating to
non-FCFCU entities or locations; all invoices of Gettmen
& Son, Inc., invoices and statements of D.C. King Co.,
all invoices of Gentlemen's Choice formal wear;
No documents are contained in Box 60 that ^ are the
personal property of Mr. King, or that were within his
personal possession or reflect substantial personal imput
of him in their making or creation. Specifically, Box 60
are 1099s, Mr. Vawter's audit files relating to 1983 and
1984 and various CD records, which appear to come from
the bookkeeping file cabinet to the right of the safe.
BOX 61 The following are the personal property of King:
Routing memo, note on small blue sheet, and letter of
4/28/87 to LEK from Cyble Cowart and letter from Kay
Michelle Allison-Davis to Cybil Cowart, with reference to
damaged pedestals; Memo to Dwight Dean from Kay Michelle
Allison-Davis dated 11/18/88 re: King Co. and
attachments; handwritten notes re: house in Washington;
handwritten notes re: Davidson's furniture - Wirt St.,
and Nebraska Furniture; letter from Kay Michelle Allison-
Davis to Marks Clare Hopkins, etc. re: invoice payment of
Terry Wiese and attachments; bill of sale from LEK, Jr.
to Robert F. Morley re: horse; routing memo; check to
Authur McGee; memo and all attachments; invoice of the
Helmsley Palace dated 9/23/88; all credit card statements
contained in File No. 98B identified as Visa, American
Express, Mastercard Account information taken from Area
II, Rhode Office; statement of FirsTier Bank dated
9/30/88 with regard to mastercard cardholders including
LEK; FirsTier Bank of Omaha statement regarding
miscellaneous checks and credit card statements as
follows: Check - 10/18/88 - American Express, Check -
10/19/88 - Cafe Carnivale; Summary of account of American
Express with closing date 7/12/88 with attached check to
American Express travel related services, check -
10/13/88 to Carmen McCrea Productions, Inc. - 95391,
95392, check to American Express - 10/19/88, check -
Citicorp Diner's Club - 10/18/88, check - 10/18/88 to
American Express, check - 10/19/88 - Walt Reeder
Productions, check - 10/18/88 - La Cage 'A ux Folles -
$5,000, check - 10/18/88 - Upstairs Diner Theater, check
- 10/12/88 American Express - $83,935.34, check - Barbara
Simon - 10/11/88, check - Wardrobe for Men - 10/14/88,
15
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Public Storage Warehouse receipt of I”Go Van - 6/30/88;
all documents in "File containing miscellaneous American
Express Documents Identified to Area II Rhode Office and
as file No. 95B''.
BOX 62
No items personal to Mr. King or prepared by him.
BOX 63
The following items are personal property of King:
a. copy of 4/19/87 calendar, identified as No. 60B; two
envelopes and contents from Allen's Furniture, one marked
No. 48B and the other No. 68B; a list of expenses and
bills - Carmen, Carmen and Hugel and other bills from
Washington DC, identified as No. 27b; Misc. bills and
invoices identified as No. 28b, with exception of invoice
from Ederer Florist bearing a postmark of 10/32/88; bill
from Horn Security showing a postmark 11/2/88; and an
invoice from All Makes Office Equipment bearing postmark
11/3/88; Yellow handwritten sheet identified as No. 36B;
yellow paper with handwritten totals of figures, is
personal; San Francisco guest list dated 7/21/86; all
date books and calendars in box 63 are personal.
Remaining material in box 63 is federal credit union
material, however, with the exception of a typewriter
sample taken from a typewriter outside Sandy Rhode s
office, all materials were taken from the office
identified as "Sec II office", identified as King's
office on the map which is in evidence. Therefore these
material would have been filed within Mr. King's office.
BOX 66 Location: These files come from the area marked "sec't
II Seer Area - files West Wall". These files apparently
come from an area behind what the Defendant King
identifies as Kurt King's Desk and would be under the
control of the Defendant King .
The following are personal to King:
Second file labeled bills and vouchers: a proposal in
name of Showcase from E & J Enterprises dated 9/19/88
with attachments; invoice of Omaha Jewelry Co. dated
7/26/88; invoice of Excel Merchandise and Novelty Co.
dated 6/27/88; invoice of Bobbitt's Custom Framing
Galleries dated 5/18/87, invoice No. 00933; invoice of
16
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Newton Mfg. Co. dated 5/14/87 and attachments; invoice
from Foreign Legion International Male dated 7/3/86;
invoices from Davidsons as personal to LEK dated
10/17/86, 10/24/86, 10/24/86; invoices with Jim Earp
Chrysler Plymouth dated 6/25/87; invoice of Davidsons
dated 6/29/87 order No. 55276; invoice of Jim Earp
Chrysler Plymouth dated 6/8/87, #2260; invoices of
Standard Printing, dated 7/2/87 and 7/10/87; invoices of
Newton Mfg. Co. dated 6/29/87 and 6/25/87; invoice of Cox
Cable, denominated "work order” dated 3/25/88; invoice of
Louis Albert and Sons, dated 3/10/88, with all
attachments (King Co.); invoice of Plains Gallery dated
3/1/88.
Third file labeled bills and vouchers; work orders of Cox
Cable; service applications of Cox Cable identified as
#'s 24357 and 18854, dated respectively 8/29/87 and
8/20/87; UPS invoice dated 12/2/86, with attached
receipt; invoice of Fiberclean of Washington, Inc. dated
3/16/88; US Postal Service statement of mailing with
permit imprints - 4/18/87; receipts of Cari rental Store
No. 021779, 021780, 021781, and 021782; receipt of Jim
Earp Chrysler Plymouth from LEK dated 6/5/87; delivery
receipt of Standard Printing Co. - 11/21/86, reference
our job No. 1385 (King Co.); vouchers, receipts, attached
checks, proposals, relating to King Co., Lawrence E.
King., Jr., the Showcase Lounge, Cafe Carnivale, MASSA,
Inc., Akasaka, and Mr. King's personal residences at
13232 No. River Road or 3000 Farnam or 2441 California,
Washington, DC.
All documents contained in file labeled "Mercedes '86"
are personal property of Mr. King.
File labeled "Contracts" - all contracts, correspondence,
receipts, invoices, or writings of any king relating to
services provided to or from King Co., LEK, Jr.
personally. King residences 13232 No, River Road, 2441
California St., N.W., Washington, DC, 2011 Wirt, 3000
Farnam, Cafe Carnivale, Showcase Lounge are the personal
property of the defendant King .
"Travel Services, Billings and similar descriptions'^ -
all invoices, bills, receipts, and writings of any kind
relating to travel services of individuals other than
employees of Franklin Community Federal Credit Union or
Consumer Services Organization. The employees of FCFCU
17
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
and CSO include the following:
Eric Schuermann; Barbara Moore; Beverly Ladd; Karen
Lloyd; Stuart Bullington; Alvin Samuels; Jeff
Claybaugh; Dan Kane (Cane) ; Frank Hagen; Allen
Conrad; Linda Lovgren; certain amount of the travel
of Sally Fink would be Franklin related; Leon
Hightower; Kevin -Rowe; Shanita Spencer (some
travel) ; Casey Randall; some travel of Andrew Baron
(Baren) ; some travel of Judy Carroll; majority of
Joel Rogers travel; Fred Williams; Martha Johnson;
some travel of Jim Hillyard; Lloyd Waterman; some
travel of Kent Miller; Greg Brooks; (Mr. King is
not sure of Tom Berger) ; all travel of Tom Vrastik;
Mark Patten; Mark Hargleroad; Richard Harris;
Jenice Moore; Madeline Harrold; Domminick Marcus;
John Barksdale; Scott Ballentine; some travel
relating to Martha Haynes and Scott Lawson; Kirby
Rockwell; Karl Frierson; and Andy Kresha.
Frank Clark; Noel Selzer; Carl Jennings
All documents contained in the file "American Express"
are personal property of Mr. King.
Larry King - travel records
BOX 67
Location: These documents apparently came from the office
of Shanita Spencer, identified as the "Southeast office".
These files were under Mr. King's control. Specifically
the files are as follows:
Items contained under 78B of the Search Warrant which are personal:
Handwritten notes and agreement on pink paper relate to LaCage Aux
Folles, and are personal to Mr. King.
Letter from Lou Paciocco to Shanita Spencer dated 9/28/88 with
attached check relating to La Cage Aux Folles fund raiser -
personal in nature.
Drafts of contracts files; drafts of the agreements contained
herein relate to an agreement with an employee of King Company,
Omar Tinsley, and also a contract for music at Showcase Lounge -
both are personal in nature.
Agreement between LEK and Shanita Spencer regarding personal loan
18
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
to Shanita Spencer; this agreement was personal in nature.
Western Union Mail-A-Gram regarding the La Cage Aux Folies fund
raiser, personal in nature as noted above.
Items contained under 79B of the checks
All documents relate to contracts of Showcase Lounge and checks
relating to Showcase Lounge matters and are personal in nature.
Ahmad Jamal file (no search warrant no.) docximent relates to
personal loan made by Mr. King to Ahmad Jamal and is personal
nature .
Carl Jennings (no search warrant no.) documents ^
personal loan by LEK to Carl Jennings and are personal in nature.
CSO audit file -
him and thus is
the correspondence authored by LEK was prepared by
comprised of substantial input of Mr. King.
Bill Wilson file - Documents in this file regarding Bill WUson are
in part personal, to the extent that Mr. ^his
Relations services for Mr. King in connection with King Co., his
personal businesses and also in connection with political functions
such as the New Orleans event at the Republican Nationa
Convention. Another letter deals with Ahmad Jamal personal loan,
personal to Mr. King as noted above; additionally a memorandum in
tS^f ile from LEK \o Jim Hilyard is personal in nature and was
authored at the direction of Mr. King, but not personally by him.
Washington Lease - documents in this file relate to Mr. King s
residence to Washington DC and are personal in nature.
Items contained in clear plastic folder with yellow note paper
labeled on front of file "Top of Desk": - relatina
Contained within this file are personal documents of L^ relating
to Frank Lewin and the Doug Williams
charitable origanization, which Mr. King served on its Board.
Manilla envelope to Ms. Shanita Spencer staff attorney Showcase
Lounge - all th^ documents in this envelope specifically relate to
the Showcase Lounge, and are personal business of Mr. King.
Directory of socially responsible investments: this docment
involved a personal request by the organization to ask for Mr.
King's involvement.
Mustard color folder entitled "Doug Williams Foundation": This was
flhlritable organization LEK was involved in, and the docunents
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
Robert Morley Correspondence File - None personal to Mr.
King
Customer Cards of Bob Morley, not the personal property
of Mr. King.
Letter dated 10/28/88 from Jenice Harrison to Sister
Helen M. Spangler, describing the services of FCFCU and
CSO. It was sent in connection with retaining their
deposit in the FCFCU. Mr. King may have had some input,
however he has no specific recollection.
Letter dated 7/26/84 identified "Letters - Morley" which
goes to Sister Kathleen Cumings in Huntington, Indiana
and was apparently sent out over Larry King's signature.
Mr. King has no specific recollection of this letter.
BOX 69:
Location: Section I Southwest Office FCFCU CD's and other Customer
deposit information.
Section I North Office memo to staff from King in re CD
competition; Mr. King had substantial participation in
making this document.
Memo dated 10/26/87 from Mr. King to staff with reference
to a contest for the staff until the end of November,
resulting in a two round-trip tickets to anywhere in the
United States. Mr. King had substantial input into the
preparation and creation of this document.
Quarterly report file a memo was prepared by L. King
dated 3/25/86 re deposit reports. Defendant King had
personal substantial participation in the creation and
making of that document.
Quarterly report file memo to a number of persons from
Larry King dated 11/1/88 re: Norwest Bank. Mr. King had
substantial personal participation in the preparation of
that memo.
Several memos from Shanita Spencer, one dated 3/25/88 and
other dated 3/25/88 re: breach of confidentiality; Mr.
King had input into these memos in that he requested
Shanita Spencer to send the memos advising of possible
21
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
breach of confidentiality.
BOX 70 Location: Section III Secretarial area
Location: Filing cabinet in reception room.
Packet of materials identified as #105A reflecting
several managers monthly reports and memoranda from Mr.
King which he personally had substantial participation in
the creation and making.
Blue binder identified as #102A was \inder Mr. King's
designated control in a secure area also maintained by
Sendee Rhode.
Black binder identified as #101A was taken from a
designated control area within Section III and was
maintained by Mr. King and Sendee Rhode.
Blue binder marked investment policy contained in Box 70,
but was nonetheless filed in Shanita Spencer's office
according to Mr. King.
Blue binder marked loan policies which likewise came from
Shanita Spencer's office.
Minutes of special Board of Directors Meeting held on
10/30/84 and 10/12/84 labeled as #109A which was within
the designated control area maintained by Sandee Rhode
and Mr. King.
Letter dated 6/28/88 to Shanita Spencer from Hank Vosbine
was contained in Shanita Spencer's office was a personal
letter of Mr. King's and related to expenses of the
Republican convention.
BOX 71 Location: Sections III and IV, on map in evidence.
File #152 A located in Section III middle office on the
west wall, Barbara Moore's office: Travel schedule
beginning March 16, 1988 and ending March 22, 1988 is
personal to LEK or substantially created by him.
#127A - Letter dated 5/6/88 and attached check and other
documents from Enron Northern Natural Gas with regard to
a table of ten at the National Conference of Christians
and Jews meeting is personal property of Mr. King.
22
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
#163B “ All documents, including seven statements from
the Red Lion Inn and receipt and requests for Checks
found in Area II outside Rhode's office are personal
property of Mr. King.
#165B - All documents identified as bill and copy from
the Maids of Capitol Hill for $1,002.60, are personal
property of Mr. King.
#154B - All documents identified as check #95684 dated
November 3, 1988 are personal property of Mr. King.
#169A - All documents in file found in Barbara Moore's
office, file marked Charles Drew Fund Drive are personal
property of Mr. King.
#155B - All documents in file identified as bill from FBG
Service Corp. Invoice #21221, and attachments, are
personal property of Mr. King.
#157B - All documents identified as check No. 95652 dated
10/31/88 payable to the Maids of Omaha and attachments,
are personal property of Mr. King.
#158B - Several documents including invoice and attached
check from Native Game Co., dated 10/28/88, invoice of
Am-Ex, Intern' 1, Inc. and attached check and insurance
renewal premium notice on 1988 LeBaron shown as paid
11/1/88 and attached check; invoice of Dan Guard, Inc.
dated 10/21/88 and attachments; all are personal property
of Mr. King.
#164B - Borsheim's invoice dated 9/25/88 and attachments
are personal property of Mr. King.
#166B - Invoice of KamAir, Inc. dated 10/31/88 is Mr.
King's personal property.
#125A - Memo from LEK to Staff dated 6/14/88; memo dated
2/2/87 from Jenice Harrison to LEK, Memo to all staff
from Judy Carroll dated 4/8/88, Memo to a number of
people from LEK dated 5/4/88 re: Showcase Lounge -
upcoming shows, 2nd page of an undated memo from L. King,
Jr. are personal property of Mr. King.
#14 OA - Mr. King had substantial input into a memo dated
3/18/87 re: cleaning desks.
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
BOX 72
Invoices 1987: All documents are personal.
Dodge Van: All documents are personal.
Travel Schedule: All documents are personal.
Bill Wilson: All documents are personal.
Blaine Kern: All documents are personal.
2nd file Blaine Kern: All documents are personal.
Lady Anna Charters: All documents are personal.
Apollo, Bock, & Co.: All documents are personal.
Doug Jasa: All documents are personal.
Olivier House Hotel: All documents are personal.
Prudential Insurance: All documents are personal.
State Farm Insurance: All documents are personal.
Farmers Insurance:
those relating to
the 1987 Cavalier.
All documents are personal except
the 1987 Acura, the 1979 Mercedes and
Jeep Cherokee '86: All documents are personal.
Jeep Cherokee *86 (Brown): All documents are personal.
Mercedes '87 Coupe - Alice: All documents are personal.
Mercedes '88 LK: All documents are personal.
Car insurance: All documents are personal except those
relating to the Acura, BMW, Cavalier, Renault, and To^an
(Honda Civic) .
Panache Catering: All documents are personal.
Invoices 1986: All documents are personal.
Invoices 1988: All documents are personal.
24
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
London Livery: All documents are personal.
Miscellaneous Expenses; All documents are personal.
Lovgren Advertising; All documents are personal.
Hotard Coaches; All documents are personal.
Balloon Sensations: All documents are personal.
Letter dated 7/29/88 with attachments from Jerry Embree
from the Nathan Berring Agency, Inc.
Nathan Berring Agency, Inc.; all documents are personal,
Niver Electronics; All documents are personal.
Janousek Florist: All documents are personal.
A substantial portion of the records located in the file
identified as Bill Wilson (Carmen, Carmen and Hugel) .
All documents in unmarked batch of documents beginning
with memo from Dan Kane to Staff and guest dated 8/8/88
with regard to New Orleans trip are personal.
Executive Jet Aviation: All documents are personal.
BOX 73 No Personal documents in this box.
BOX 74 Clear Plastic Envelope; Memo from Manager, LEK, to Staff
re; deposit drive contest dated 1/18/84; authored by Mr.
King and he had substantial input.
BOX 75 All checks, vouchers,
relate to invoices for
or rendered for Mr.
businesses and his
property of Mr . King .
BOX 76 All checks, vouchers,
relate to invoices for
or rendered for Mr.
businesses and his
property of Mr . King .
BOX 77 All checks, vouchers,
relate to invoices for
and daily teller reports which
services or products delivered to
King, and all of his personal
immediate family, are personal
and daily teller reports which
services or products delivered to
King, and all of his personal
immediate family, are personal
and daily teller reports which
services or products delivered to
25
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSIT^
BOX 78
BOX 79
BOX 80
BOX 81
BOX 82
BOX 83
BOX 84
BOX 85
BOX 86
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are personal
property of Mr. King.
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered to
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his persona
businesses and his immediate family, are persona
property of Mr . King .
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered t
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are persona
property of Mr. King.
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered to
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are persona
property of Mr. King.
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered to
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are Mr. King s
personal property.
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered to
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are Mr. King s
personal property.
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered to
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are Mr. King s
personal property.
All checks, vouchers, and daily teller reports which
relate to invoices for services or products delivered to
or rendered for Mr. King, and all of his personal
businesses and his immediate family, are Mr. King s
personal property.
Investment records of FCFCU with no personal input by
Mr. King.
FEDERAL BUILDING DEPOSITORY
BOX 87 Teller reports, daily and monthly, and money order
coupons, none of which are personal property of Mr. King
nor documents which he had substantial input insofar as
their creation or making.
Additionally, to the extent found in Boxes 54 through 87, invoices
and other documents relating to Mr. King, his immediate family, and
his businesses, would be his personal property.
27
BOXES 1 THRU 6B
OF ITEMS SEIZED BY THE NCUA
HOUSED IN THE FEDERAL RECORDS DEPOSITORY
BOX 2
Location: The materials in this box were contained within Larry
King's office in the credenza located on the West Wall.
Personnel Committee:
A number of memos were drafted by Mr. King contained in this
file and represent substantial input.
Personnel Committee:
A number of memos were drafted by Mr. King contained in this
file and represent substantial input.
Travel Materials *■ Larry King:
File contained personal records of Larry King regarding both
airline and hotel bills for travel
Phone Plus King Co.:
This file contained personal material regarding phone for King
Co.
Planned Parenthood:
This is all personal material of Mr. King - he served on the
Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood.
Presbytery #5:
Personal material relating to service on the National
Presbytery Board.
Staff Structure:
Mr. King had substantial input into the drafting of the staff
structure chart and description of duties.
Presbyterian Metro. Ministry - Special Meeds Commltte:
Personal materials of Mr. King which had been sent to him due
to other Presbyterian committes he served on.
Finance Section Meeting Presbyterian:
Personal records relating to Larry King's service on the
budget and finance section of the general counsel of the
Presbyterian Church.
Professional Remodelers:
These are all personal documents relating to the remodeling of
house for King Co.; specifically there are a niimber of letters
authored by Mr. King and showing substantial input in terms of
directions and concerns of Mr. King about the progress of the
remodeling.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Leontyne Price:
Personal materials relating to a
International of which LEK was Chairman.
fund raiser for Frontier
Prudential Insurance 1988: V... 4 -V,
These are personal documents relating to insurance fo
Cafe Carnivale, King Co. and LEK*s residence.
Some of the records in this file relate to personal
involving remodeling of the Wirt Street property of King Co. and
Mr. King's personal residence.
Reportstv^^ reports which were dictated by LEK following various
trips and represent substantial personal imput.
Republican National Committee: ar^i-<vitv
Personal information of LEK regarding political activity.
John Savage and Findley:
Involves personal remodeling of LEK personal residence.
soulpture^^^l regarding sculpture of LEK - a bust was
completed based upon some of the documents in the file.
Manilla Envelope address to Joseph C. Bryne from the Presbystery of
the Missouri Valley:
Materals contained in this envelope are all personal relating
to LEK service on various Prebstery committees.
File contains a number of memos from LEK to Security guards
and these represent substantial input of Mr. King.
Showcase tLounge^ersonai memos authored by LEK to
employees of Showcase and from Showcase employees to LEK all
relating to his personal business of Showcase Lounge.
Showcase Lounge 1988:
Same type of file as listed above.
Showcase Printers - Copy Cat: . iorh
Same contents as Showcase Lounge file and Showcase Lounge 1988
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6 B
file.
RSVP I
Personal materials of Mr. King relating to service on the RSVP
Board .
Salvation Army: o 4 . •
Personal records of LEK regarding service on the Salvation
Army Board.
Strategic Planning Committee:
Personal materials of LEK relating to service on the
Frontier's International Board
Small Business Development Center:
Personal documents relating to Mr. King's service on the Small
Business Development Center Board.
Salvation Army: , 4 . .
Personal materials relating to service on Salvation Army
Board.
Souvenior Program Committe: ^
Documents relating to service on a fund raising committee tor
Calvin Presbyterian Church, LEK's personal church.
Speech - Dominican:
Personal notes of Mr. King which were used in delivering a
speech at Dominican High School representing personal matter plus
substantial iiuput of Mr. King.
Prudential Insurance: ^
Correspondence and documents relating to insurance for
employees of Showcase Lounge, Restaurant Food Service, King Co.,
CSO and the Credit Union included with file is personal
correspondence of LEK with the insurance agent representing
substantial input.
storz House: (2 files)
File labeled in blue contained correspondence and memos
authored by LEK and represents substantial imput.
Barbara Simon: . v‘
Contains documents authored by Mr. King and sent to Mr. King.
Documents authored by Mr. King represent substantial input; the
documents also, and in part, personal in nature relating to
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
advertising for personal businesses of Mr. King.
Task Force:
Documents relating to service by Mr. King on the Committee on
business entrepreneur.
Ten Outstanding Omahans:
Personal documents relating to JayCees.
United Van Lines, Inc.:
Documents relate to the moving of Mr. King's grandmother to
Omaha and are personal in nature. •
Urban League - Guild:
Documents contained in file are personal in nature relating to
participation on the Urban League Board and a number of documents
represent a substantial imput of Mr. King.
Vail, Colorado:
Personal correspondence to Mr. King regarding real estate in
Vail, Colorado .
Videotapes:
List of videotapes which Mr. King kept at his personal
residence, personal documents.
Woodson Center Membership:
Documents of personal nature relating to service on the
Woodson Center membership committee.
Twin Towers:
Documents of a personal nature relating to apartments rented
by LEK at Twin Towers.
Y.E.8. (Youth Emergency Services):
Contains personal materials relating to service on the Youth
Emergency Service Board by LEK.
Gary West:
This file relates to a personal loan made by LEK to Gary West
and documents related to the need for the loan by Mr. West and
where the money would be spent.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
BOX 5: Location; Files from this box were located either in file
cabinets in King's office or behind Sandy Rhode s aesK.
^“e^diouments in this file are personal in nature and a nemo
in the file to the "family group" represents substantial input of
LEK. These documents relate to a family reunion which LEK plann
Credit Cards and Credit Card Hxunbers: (2 files)
These files contain lists of credit cards
credit cards which are personal credit cards.
and references to
Davis and Associates:
A number of the letters contained
substantial input of LEK.
in this file represent
ByLaws of CSO, Inc. :
The documents contained in
input of LEK.
files were drafted with substantial
CSO Counseling Proposal:
The documents contained in files were
input of LEK.
drafted with substantial
CSO/HALEY-Makielski :
The documents contained in
input of LEK.
files were drafted with substantial
Exchange^Cl^.file ^ relate to Exchange Club of Omaha, a
service club which Mr. King was a member.
Douclas williams Foundation: - o •
^ Contents are personal and relate to a charitable foundation
for which Mr. King served on the board.
Department of Energy submitted to Eric West; ^ tttv
Documents in this file reflect substantial input of LEK.
susan^DaviSj^avis company is a PR firm in Washington, DC and did
substantial public relations work of a personal nature with
reference to LEK personally and his personal businesses. Susan
Daiis company also undertook some public relations for the credit
union Much of the correspondence and the documents contained in
the file represent substantial input of LEK in addition to being
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
documents, in part, of a personal nature.
Entertainment:
Documents contained in the file are personal in nature and
alsp reflect substantial input of LEK relating to the Mr & Mrs.
Club of his Church, Calvin Presbyterian.
DC House:
Documents relate to Mr. King's house in Washington DC and are
personal in nature.
Pact Sheet, PCPCU: ....
Documents in this file involve substantial input in their
creation by LEK.
Federal Express: ....
Many of the federal express receipts contained within this
file are mailings of personal items or gifts to personal
acquaintances and relatives. Additionally many other receipts
relate to mailings in connection with LEK's personal businesses:
King Co. , Cafe Carnivale, etc.
Emergency Funding:
Proposal contained in the file was created with substantial
input of LEK.
Fair Housing Counsel California:
Documents contained in this file are personal ^ in nature
relating to LEK's service on the Board of the Fair Housing Counsel
of California.
Fair Housing Seminar:
Documents in this file relate to the Fair Housing Counsel
California and are personal in nature.
Family Reunion:
Notes in this file are personal in nature and relate to a
family reunion planned by Mr. King.
Wayne Crvimbley:
Letter in this file represents substantial input of Mr. King.
DC House:
Documents in this file relate to Mr. King's house in
Washington DC and are personal in nature.
33
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Frontiers Intern' 1:
Documents in this file are personal in nature
Mr. King's membership in Frontiers Intern '1 Club.
and relate to
Frontiers Club and Party List:
Documents in this file are personal in nature
Mr. King's membership in Frontiers Intern '1 Club.
and relate to
The documents in this file relate to Mr. King's participation
of the General Counsel of the Presbyterian Church and are personal
in nature.
Documents in this file relate to Mr. King's position as the
Chairman of the Board of the Girls Club and are personal in nature.
Global Ministries: , , ^ . ^
Documents in this file relate to Mr. King's membership on the
board of Global Ministries and are personal in nature.
GOCA : ^ •
Documents in this file relate to Mr. King's participation in
GOCA and are personal in nature.
Grand Opening: ^ v.
Some of the documents within this file were created through
substantial input of Mr. King.
Good Fellows/World Herald:
Documents in this file were
Mr. King.
created with substantial input of
Good Fellows: . ^ • .u ^
Documents in this file were created with substantial input of
Mr. King.
^‘^’^oicument in this file relate in part to personal vehicles of
LEK.
HCD * CDAG :
Some correspondence in this file represents substantial input
of LEK.
Danny Hill:
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Correspondence in file was created with substantial input of
LEK.
HDD:
Notes in this file represent substantial input of LEK.
HDD Letters :
Letters in this file represent substantial input of LEK.
BOX 6
Location: Files contained in Lawrence King's office in credenza
located on west wall.
[♦Attorney-Client Communication and Personal]
Er icXson-Sederstrom :
Letters :
♦From Howard Kaplan to LEK dated 11/5/85
♦From LEK to Howard Kaplan dated 3/25/86
♦From Howard Kaplan to LEK dated 11/7/86
♦From Samuel Clark to LEK dated 5/19/87
♦From Samuel Clark to LEK dated 8/5/87
From Samuel Clark to Dan Kane dated 8/5/87 re: Opera Omaha -
personal in nature
Memo from Dan Kane to Larry with attached letter from Sam Clark to
Dan Kane date 12/22/89 - personal
♦From Samuel Clark to LEK dated 7/8/87
♦Memo from J. Russell Derr to LEK dated 9/22/86
Letter to J. Russell Derr dated 8/19/86 - Personal
♦from Howard Kaplan to LEK dated 8/21/87 with attachments
Form 872-A "Special Consent to Extend the Time to Assess Tax" -
Form relating to Personal income tax.
Letter dated 3/20/86 from Mitchell Premiss, District Director IRS
to LEK and AGK
♦Letter dated 5/6/87 from LEK to Howard Kaplan
♦Memo from Samuel Clark to J. Derr dated 12/10/86
♦Letter dated 12/9/86 from Sam Clark to LEK.
♦From J. Russell Derr to LK dated 9/22/86 a memo.
Letter dated 3/23/87 from Sam Clark to Dan Kane - Personal in
nature .
Dated 4/23/87 letter from Sam Clark to Dan Kane - personal in
nature relating to Prince King.
♦Letter dated 12/22/86 from Sam Clark to LEK
♦Letter dated 12/18/86 from J. Russell Derr to LEK
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
★Letter dated 12/16/87 from Sam Clark to LEK
Letter dated 11/5/87 from Sam Clark to Dan Kane - letter relates
to personal matters involving Mr. King's son.
Letter dated 10/30/87 from Housing Authority City of Omaha to Sam
Clark - relating to a personal matter involving Mr.
King's son. .
Letter dated 10/22/87 from Sam Clark to Dan Kane - personal in
nature relating to Mr. King's son.
★Letter dated 7/1/87 from J. Russell Derr to LEK.
Letter dated 6/12/87 from J. Russell Derr to Governor Kay Orr -
letter is personal in nature and relates to political
activities of Mr. King.
Letter dated 6/12/87 from J. Russell Derr to Senator David Karnes
— letter is personal in nature and relates to political
activities of Mr. King.
Letter dated 6/12/87 from J. Russell Derr to Congressman Hal Daub
- personal in nature relating to political activites.
★letter dated 6/12/87 from LEK to Sam Clark
★Letter dated 6/10/87 from Sam Clark to LEK
★Letter dated 4/13/87 from J. Russell Derr to LEK
★Letter dated 8/25/86 from J. Russell Derr to LEK with enclosure
from Glines Production, Inc.
★6/13/86 letter from J. Russell Derr to LEK with attachment.
★6/10/86 from J. Russell Derr to LEK.
6/10/86 from J. Russell Derr to Tom Raynor - personal in nature
regarding personal property.
6/11/86 from J. Russell Derr to LEK
Letter dated 12/1/86 from Sam Clark to Joe Wendell - letter is
personal in nature relating to a personal business of Mr.
King. . , .
Letter dated 5/26/87 from J. Russell Derr to Josephine Wandel --
personal in nature relating to personal King businesses.
★Letter dated 12/2/86 from J. Russell Derr to LEK
★Letter dated 3/25/86 from LEK to Howard Kaplan
IRS Form 872-A for Lawrence E. and Alice G. King - personal in
nature relating to personal income taxes.
Letter dated 6/3/87 from Ed DeMaranville to LEK - personal matter
relating to possible loan to friend.
Outgoing 1987 File:
★Letter dated 1/7/87 from LK to Joseph C. Byrne, attorney at law.
this letter is personal.
Letter dated 11/85 from LEK to Margaret Wright - personal
involving King Co.
Letter dated 11/16/87 from LEK to Bill Jones - personal.
Letter dated 11/16/87 from LEK to Credit Manager Ceasars Palace -
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Personal.
Letter dated 10/22/87 from LEK to Ambassador Gerald Carmen -
Personal.
Letter dated 10/16/87 from LEK to Dan Janousek - Personal.
Letter dated 10/13/87 from Sandy Rhode to Bob McGuire - personal.
Letter dated 8/21/87 from Joseph Byrne to Professional Evaluation
Services - Personal.
★Letter dated 10/26/87 from LEK to Howard Kaplan, attorney at law,
Personal
Letter dated 8/3/87 from LEK to Dan Janousek - Personal.
Letter dated 7/29/87 from Tony Evans to Margaret Wright - personal
King Co. Corresondence .
Letter dated 8/5/87 from Carolyn Rothery to Hans Luthi - Personal
Letter dated 7/1/87 from J. Russell Derr to Rod Smith - Personal
Letter dated 6/5/87 from Sandy Rhode to Dwight Dean - Personal
regarding King Co.
Memo dated 6/18/87 from LEK to Tom Cech - Personal
Memo to King Co. Employees - personal
Letter dated 9/28/87 from John Jacob to LEK regarding Showcase -
Personal .
★Letter dated 11/6/87 from Joseph Byrne to LEK - Personal
Letter dated 10/27/87 from Carol Schrader to LEK re: King Co. -
personal
Letter dated 10/19/87 from Dick Walter to LEK - Personal
★Letter dated 12/9/87 from LEK to Carolyn Rothery - Personal - re:
King Co. employee
Letter dated 11/30/87 for LEK to Wm. Johnson - Personal.
Letter dated 12/24/87 from LEK to Steven Ahern - Personal -
regarding King Co. employee
Letter dated 12/10/87 from Carolyn Rothery to Dan and Don Janousek
- Personal
Letter dated 8/28/87 from LEK to Betty Cutler - Personal.
Letter dated 7/7/87 from J. Keith Basham to Sandy Rhode -
Personal.
Letter dated 8/1/87 from LEK to Margaret Uberman - Personal.
Letter dated 6/17/87 from LEK from Helen Patterson - Personal.
Letter dated 6/16/87 from LEK to Leonard Harrold - Personal
Letter dated 6/15/87 from LEK to Chris Janicek - personal.
Letter dated 6/12/87 from LEK to Arlin Meadows - personal.
Letter dated 7/2/87 from Carolyn Rothery to Jim Jordan - personal.
Letter dated 6/26/87 from Carolyn Rothery to Greg Sapp - Personal.
Letter dated 5/13/87 from LEK to Orkin - part personal part FCFCU
Letter dated 6/11/87 from Lou Cooper to Members of the Synod
Council “ Personal.
Letter dated 7/2/87 from Carolyn Rothery to Division Manager, GMAC
- personal.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Letter dated 6/29/87 from Bob Reynolds of the Synod of Lakes and
Prairies of the Presbyterian Church to Planning/Budget
committee - Personal
Letter dated 5/29/87 from LEK to Tom Davis of the Boys Club -
personal.
Letter dated 4/14/87 from Wm. L. Ball, III to Hal Daub -
personal.
Letter dated 5/11/87 from LEK to John Cockran - personal.
Letter dated 5/7/87 from Sandra Rhode to Warren Stude - personal.
Letter dated 5/5/87 from LEK to Dear Friends; - Personal.
Typewritten notes of LEK headed "James C. Hart, Jr." personal and
substantial input.
Letter dated 2/17/87 from J. Russell Derr to Josephine Walsh
Wandel - personal.
Letter dated 5/5/87 from Carolyn Rothery to Bob Reed - personal.
Memo dated 3/9/87 from LEK to Carolyn Rothery - personal.
Letter dated 2/13/87 from LEK to Rev. Reggie Findlay - Personal.
Letter dated 1/6/87 from LEK to Mike Moran - personal.
Incoming 1987:
♦Letter dated 6/18/87 from Samuel Clark to LEK - personal.
♦Letter dated 7/8/87 from J. Russell Derr to LEK - personal.
Memo dated 7/7/87 from J. Russell Derr to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 9/25/87 from J. Russell Derr to Sandy Rhode -
personal .
♦Letter dated 10/5/87 from Samuel Clark to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 10/12/87 from J. Russell Derr to Dan Kane - personal.
♦Letter dated 10/6/87 from Samuel Clark to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 9/18/87 from Scott MacKenzie to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 3/23/87 from Joe Edraundson to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 6/29/87 from Juanita De Sosa to LEK and attachment -
personal.
Letter dated 7/17/87 from Jon D. Hoffmaster to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 7/14/87 from Traci L. Simms to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 1/6/87 from Andy (Harold W. Anderson) to LEK -
personal.
Letter dated 6/9/87 from Robert C. Blanchard to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 6/19/87 from Hal Daub to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 6/16/87 from Senator Eugene J. McCarthy to LEK -
personal.
♦Letter dated 6/29/87 from Carolyn Rothery to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 6/16/87 from David K. Karnes to LEK - personal.
Letter from LEK to Mrs. Dopheide - personal
Letter dated 7/5/87 from John Sinclair to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 10/9/87 from Bob Dole to LEK - personal.
Note with receipts postmarked 8/17/87 from Pavo Real Gallery to
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
LEK - Personal.
Letter dated SI21I%1 from Germaine Atebery to LEK - personal.
Thank you note from Leslie Jones to LEK — personal.
Letter dated 10/12/87 from Alan McReynolds to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 10/19/87 from Karen Engelsman to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 10/7/87 from Norm Filbert to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 9/16/87 from Martha Loften Scott to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 9/16/87 from Joanna Asison to LEK - personal.
Postcard from Hilda to LEK dated 10/12/87 - personal.
Greeting card from Andy to LEK “ personal.
Letter dated 6/21/87 from Peter O. Colmain to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 6/26/87 from Cindy Weiss to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 6/12/87 from Willard D. Campbell, Jr. to LEK
Personal.
Letter dated 6/25/87 from James Watson to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 6/19/87 from ''Bob'* MidAmerica Council of Boy Scouts -
Personal.
Letter dated 5/26/87 from Douglas Leon to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 6/10/87 from Thomas O. David to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/5/87 from LEK to Evie Perkins - personal.
Passbook of LEK for Harlem Heights Federal Cr. Union No. 043
Personal.
Incoming 1987: a. i j m/on/cn
Thank you note from Joan at Robyn Weir postmarked 10/20/87 -
personal.
★Letter dated 10/27/87 from Howard Kaplan to LEK - personal
Letter dated 1/10/87 from John Fogarty Communications to LEK
personal.
Letter dated 11/20/87 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - Personal.
Letter dated 7/2/87 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - Personal.
Letter dated 12/4/87 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - Personal.
Letter dated 4/27/87 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - Personal.
Letter dated 1/20/87 from Glenn A. Friendt to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 11 / 8/86 from Ruth Noel to LEK - personal.
★Letter dated 1/16/87 from Joseph Byrne to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 1/31/87 from Hilda C. Stevenson to Mr. & Mrs. Charles
Durham - personal
Letter dated 1/21/87 from Hilda C. Stevenson to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 11 / 20/86 from Joseph C. Byrne to LEK - personal.
Memo dated 3/5/87 from King Co. staff to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 3/4/87 from John to LEK with attachments - personal.
Letter dated 2/13/87 from Lt. Col. Gary L. Herndon to LEK -
personal.
Letter dated 2/6/87 from Del Weber to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 1/26/87 from Carolyn A. Rothery to R.P. Reed -
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
personal.
Letter dated 2/6/87 from Joseph C. Byrne to Kevin Morrisey -
personal.
Letter dated 2/4/87 from Jack Kemp to LEK ~ personal.
Letter dated 1/5/87 from Herbert M. Patten to Marvin D. Klapp -
personal.
Letter dated 2/13/87 from Joy Cooper to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 3/31/87 from Wm. R. Waldrop to King Co. - personal.
Letter dated 4/6/87 from C.J. Raffensperger to LEK - personal.
Letter from J.W. Marriott, Jr. to LEK - personal.
Letter from Doui to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 4/13/87 from Doui to LEK - personal.
♦Letter dated 12/16/87 from Samuel Clark to LEK - personal.
Invitation to social functions and thank you cards for functions
- personal.
Letter dated 12/11/87 from Mark L. Holtzman to LEK - personal.
Letter from Mercedes Ellington to LEK postmarked 6/12/87 -
personal.
♦Letter dated 3/18/87 from Carolyn Rothery to LEK - personal.
Letter from Mercedes Ellington to LEK •* personal
Letter dated 4/14/87 from Alvin M. Goodwin to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 12/4/87 from Artisan Woods to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 4/9/87 from Robert C. Wadman to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 4/21/87 from Joseph C. Byrne to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 2/18/87 from Johnny L. Askew to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/11/87 from Lt. Col. Gray L. Herndon to LEK -
personal.
Letter dated 5/20/87 from Mrs. Gladis Ross to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/26/87 from Carolyn Rothery to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/12/87 from Kay A. Orr to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 3/11/87 from Carolyn A. Rothery to Bob Lee -
Personal.
Letter from D. Leon to LEK - personal - postmarked 4/2/87.
Incoming 1988 :
♦Letter dated 2/29/87 from Samuel E. Clark to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/4/88 from Rodney Weed to LEK - personal.
Letter and bill from Asprey postmarked 3/2/88 to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 4/29/88 from Jack Kemp to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/19/88 from Ree Schonlau to LEK - personal.
Letter from Edward J. Perkins to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 9/16/88 from Charles M. Harper to LEK - personal.
Various personal invitations, thank you notes and personal
greeting cards.
Letter dated 6/24/88 from J. Russell Derr to Michael and Betty
Cutler - personal.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Notes concerning payroll from Erickson-Sederstrom to LEK
postmarked 2/29/88 - personal.
Letter dated 4/29/88 from Janice to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 4/22/88 from Paul Aludo to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 4/5/88 from Mary Naylor to Sandy Rhode - personal.
Letter dated 4/14/88 with attachments from Randall J. Palandri to
LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/24/88 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - personal.
Letter dated 4/4/88 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - personal.
Letter postmarked 3/8/88 from John Jean Claude Jitrois - personal.
Letter dated 4/5/88 from Bill Wilson to Larry King - personal.
Memo from Keith Allerton to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/13/88 from Laraine Linde to LEK - Personal.
Letter from Susan W. Thomas and Janice D. Stoney to LEK - personal
★Letter dated 8/4/88 from J. Russell Derr to LEK - personal - with
attachments
Letter dated 2/18/88 from Steve McCollister to LEK - personal.
Letter from H. Michael Cutler to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 9/12/88 from Pearline Mosley to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 6/3/88 from Charles E. Laczynski to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 3/15/88 from Arva to LEK - personal.
★Letter dated 5/17/88 from J. Russell Derr to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/18/88 from Gerald P. Carmen to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 5/10/88 from Dianne Desler to LEK - personal.
Letter from Scott B. MacKenzie to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 8/9/88 from R. W. Sayers to LEK - personal.
★Letter dated 8/10/88 from Samuel E. Clark to LEK - personal.
★Letter dated 9/20/88 from J. Russell Derr to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 8/5/88 from LEK to Barbara Simon with attached Memo.
- Personal
Letter dated 8/2/88 from Samuel E. Clark to Dan Kane - personal.
Letter from Leroy E. Childs to Judge Vondrasek - personal.
Letter dated 1/14/88 from Ree Schonlau to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 2/2/88 from Sam Clark to Dan Kane - personal.
Letter dated 1/7/88 from Sam Clark to Dan Kane - personal.
Letter dated 3/22/88 from David Stern to LEK - Personal.
Letter dated 12/31/88 from Frank T. Peak to LEK - personal.
Letter from Randi to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 11/27/88 from J. Russell Derr to LEK - personal.
Letter from John B. Boyce to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 2/3/88 from LEK to Doui Dominic with attached letter
from Doui Dominic to LEK dated 1/26/88 - personal.
Letter dated 2/1/88 from Ruth Noel to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 2/1/88 from Ruth Noel to LEK - personal.
Letter dated 2/9/88 from Elizabeth Davis Pittman to LEk -
personal .
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Letter dated
Letter dated
personal.
Letter dated
Letter dated
Letter dated
Letter dated
Letter dated
1/30/88 from Joanna Vaison to LEK - personal.
5/20/88 from Helen Brownell to Barry Stark
5/5/88 from Samuel Clark to Dan Kane - personal.
4/28/88 from Debbi Lombardo to LEK - personal.
3/3/88 from Joe and Jean Edmundson to LEK - persona
3/14/88 from Samuel E. Clark to LEK - personal.
3/8/88 from Linda McKenzie to LEK - personal.
°Letter^dated 1/8/88 from LEK to Ray E. Nelson -
Letter dated 1/8/88 from LEK to Warren Taylor - personal.
llttlr dated 2/17/88 from LEK to the City Association -
personal. .
Letter dated 2/11/88 from LEK to Fred Brown - personal.
Letter dated 2/11/88 from LEK to Hank Vosbein - personal.
Envelope with pictures from Douglas Leon - personal.
Letter dated 12/3/87 from LEK to Douglas Leon - personal.
Letter dated 12/14/87 from Douglas Leon - personal.
Letter dated 2/29/88 from LEK to Patricia Pachuta - personal.
Letter dated 3/2/88 from LEK to Mary Jo Morrissey - personal.
Western Union Telegram dated 2/22/88 - personal.
Letter dated 2/23/88 from LEK to Harold Andersen - personal.
Letter dated 2/27/88 from LEK to Hans Luthi - personal.
Notes regarding Antoine Beth - personal.
Letter dated 2/29/88 from LEK to Patricia Pachuta -
Letter dated 3/7/88 from Floyd T. Waterman to Ms. LaGree S.
Daniels - Personal. .
Letter dated 3/4/88 from LEK and Floyd Waterman to LaGree Daniels
Letter dated 3/7/88 from Wm. W. Jennings, Jr. to Phyllis Hicks
Letter dated 2/11/88 from Marc L. Holtzman to Margaret McCulla
personal. .
Letter dated 3/10/88 from LEK to Louise Hairston - personal.
Letter dated 3/2/88 from LEK to Mary Jo Morrissey - personal.
Letter dated 3/4/88 form LEK to Wm. J. Bennet - personal.
Letter dated 4/29/88 from LEK to Phyllis Hicks - personal.
L^tlr da^ed 4/28/88 from LEK to Washington Park Gourmet -
Letter datS^5/26/88 from LEK to LeGree Daniels - personal.
Lette? dated 4/13/88 from Carolyn Rothery to Alice P. King -
Letter dated^47l5/88 from LEK to Pastor Bob Timber lak - personal.
Letter dated 6/27/88 from LEK to J. Allen Mactier - personal.
Letter Lted 6/30/88 from Samuel Clark to Karen Lloyd - personal.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Letter dated 8/28/88 from LEK to Chief Robert Wadman - personal.
2 letters dated 9/15/88 from LEK to Scott and Donnie - Personal.
Letter dated 7/14/88 from LEK to Douglas O. Deshazer - personal.
Letter dated 5/5/88 from Shanita Spencer to Linda Glowe -
personal.
Letter dated 1/21/88 from LEK to Dwayne Dominic - personal.
Letter dated 8/28/88 from LEK to Terry Thomas - personal.
Letter dated 8/9/88 from Shanita Spencer to Wm. Johnson, M.D. -
personal.
Letter dated 8/22/88 from LEK to The Doug Williams Foundation -
personal .
[NOTE: Balance of files in Box 6 are personnel type files and many
of the files contain memos or letters authored by LEK or in which
LEK had substantial input. There was substantial input into all
the personnel files by LEK, however, specifically noted below are
files concerning non-FCFCU/CSO employees who may have been employed
by the King personal businesses]
Charles Brizendine:
Memo dated 3/2/88 to various staff members from Bookkeeping Dept. -
LEK had substantial input into this Memo.
Letter from Charles Brizendine to King Enterprises - 2/18/88. Mr.
Brizendine was a part-time King Co. employee as well as a part-
time employee of FCFCU.
Judith Carroll:
Worked part-time for FCFCU/CSO and also worked part-time for the
various King businesses including Showcase Lounge and King Co. and
Mr. King personally; various documents in file relate to her
employment with the King businesses and are personal in nature.
Shanita Spencer:
This file contains a personal promissory note between Shanita
Spencer and LEK.
Barbara Moore:
One of the memos in Barbara Moore's files dated 12/2/87 involves a
personal matter regarding a Frontier's International program.
A receipt and funeral purchase agreement. This document is
personal and relates to LEK personally obtained for the
funeral of Barbara Moore's son.
Odell Evans:
The memos and correspondence in this file are personal. Mr. Evans
was a King Co. employee.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Rodney Evans:
All of the documents contained in the file involve Mr. Evan's
employment as both an employee of Cafe Carnivale and King Co. and
are personal in nature.
Stephen FinX:
Documents in this file are personal in nature.
Martha Haynes:
Memo in this file is personal in nature and relates to her
employment with Showcase Lounge.
James D. Hilyard:
Documents in this file are personal in nature.
Jzu&es D. Jordon:
Documents in this file are personal in nature in that Mr. Jordon
was a King Co. employee.
Dan Kane: ...
Some of the documents in this file relate to personal activities in
which Mr. King was involved.
Mrs. Jetter:
Correspondence in this file is personal relating to Masa, Inc. , a
King business.
Vernell Magett:
Documents in this file are personal in nature relating to Mr.
Magett 's employment with King Co.
Roy Melson:
Documents in this file are personal in nature and relating to Mr.
Nelson as a King Co. employee.
Bob O'Toole:
Documents in this file are personal and relate to Mr. O'Toole's
employment with Cafe Carnivale and Showcase.
Omar Tinsley:
Documents in this file are personal in that Mr. Tinsley was a King
Co . employee .
Patrick Thompson:
Documents in this file are personal in nature in that Mr. Thompson
was a King Co. Employee.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6 B
Kurt is H. King; .
Documents in the file relate to handling matters for Mr. King s
personal businesses.
Tmthony T . Evans ; > 4 . • 4 .
Documents in this file are personal in nature relating to Mr.
Evan's employment with King Co.
13232 No. River Road and 3701 N. 45 - documents contained in this
file are personal.
Loose letter in Box 6 :
★Dated 8/2/88 from Samuel E. Clark to LEK - personal and attorney
client privilege.
Documents^ in \h is file are personal relating to Mr. Beverly's
employment at Showcase Lounge .
staff 6 7 *
Memo froi LEK dated 12/26/87 to staff of FCFCU and King personal
businesses.
Karen Lloyd: , ^ ,
Memo dated 8 / 8/88 from LEK to Karen Lloyd are personal.
Jenice A. Harrison: ... . v 4 ... rr-v
Memo in this file dated 9/3/87 from Jenice Moore (Harrison) to LEK
is personal in nature.
Supervisor re: Committee; .
Letter and envelope dated 2/8/88 from Ms. Spencer to LEK is
personal.
Financial statements of PaGoMo, Inc. - personal
BOX 6 A
E. Thomas Harvey, Jr.: substantial number of memos and other
writings authored by LEK, Jr., in which he had substantial
participation in their making or creating. Therefop, all
documents showing LEK, Jr. as the author of such memos should be
identified to him as a substantial contributor.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Memo: substantial number of memos and other writings authored by
LEK, Jr., in. which he had substantial participation in their making
or creating. Therefore, all documents showing LEK, Jr. as the
author of such memos should be identified to him as a substantial
contributor.
Envelope addressed to CSO: all documents with regard to a HUD
grant contain substantial input of the Defendant King insofar as
review before submission and signing off as the manager/director .
Articles of Incorp. 501C3: LK had some input with respect to the
preparation, making, and creation of these docviments.
Showcase Bar: All documents contained in this file are the
personal property of Mr. King.
White envelope with no addressee but showing the U.S. Dept, of
Justice as the addresser contains a request from the IRS which is
the personal property of Mr. King.
Working Group Contract: LK had some input but not significant
input .
Document addressed to LK showing the Tom written by longhand on the
outside of the envelope from Housing and Community Development
Department of City of Omaha - LK had some input but not significant
input .
Envelope showing on the outside CSO Board Meeting Minutes Mr. King
-all documents are personal to Mr. King
Scott Lawson: All typewritten material is personal to Mr. King,
and the documents showing they were authored by him contain his
substantial participation in their creation and making.
Episcopal Church "Howard's office" - all documents are personal to
Mr. King except those documents relating to receipt of grants on
behalf of CSO or FCFCU.
Cafe - "Donna Davis" - all documents are personal to Mr. King.
"Think, Sally" - All such documents are personal to Mr. King.
Unmarked file - relating to a former employee Mepherson, the memo
from LEK, Jr. dated 6/21/79 was authored by Mr. King.
Federal Depository Building
Boxes 1 thru 6B
Budget Finance Committee Presbyterian (Omaha) these documents are
personal to Mr. King. He was the chairman of the Finance committee
of the Presbytery of Missouri River Valley /Omaha.
SDOP; All material contained therein is personal to Mr. King.
Bundle of Memos and letter: Mr. King had
in the creation and making of those memos
author .
substantial participation
which identify him as the
Doug Hughes; All documents are personal to Mr. King.
Cleos; All documents contained in’ this file are personal to Mr
King.
•'CC: All documents are personal to Mr. King.
BOX 6B
All files, correspondence
the file labeled "Larry's
the Defendant King.
and documents of whatever kind located in
tax stuff" are the personal property of
All documents contained in the file "Lawrence E. King" are personal
to Mr. King.
With respect to file labeled "Tim Ogle" those files are the
personal property of Mr. King.
With respect to file labeled "Frank Clark" some of these doc^ents
are credit union documents, specifically those which relate to his
credit union employment, and the remaining documents are the
personal property of Defendant King.
With respect to the handwriting of Mr. King on two documents, 1) a
memo to Mr. King from Jerry Quintero, and 2) a document
structure" both of which are contained in clear envelopes,
hLdwriting identified to Mr. King with the long, handwritten
portion of^each document, with the exception of the note from Tom
"this is the current bonus structure" was prepared by Mr. King.
rsPECIAL NOTE! BOX 4: Contains personal financial statements of
Larry and Alice and a 1983 copy of a tax return, which are personal
property of King. Boxes 3 and 4 appear to be a conglomeration of
documents which came from several different areas.
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
NCUA BOX REVIEW
The following review is from the Boxes of documents contained at
the document depository controlled by the National Credit Union
Administration in West Omaha.
Appear to be files classified by customers of share accounts and
share certificate accounts. LEK is unaware of where these files
were located and had no participation of the documents. They are
not the personal property of LEK. Apparently contain active files.
Contained in file cabinets marked with the same nu:J>ers. These
documents appear to be active share and share certificate file?*
LEK is not aware as to where these documents are maintained nor di
he have any participation of the preparation of them. They appear
not to be the personal property of LEK.
BOXES 35“5X
Contain apparently inactive CD and share account files. These
files would have been kept under the control of the Bookkeeping
Dept. LEK did not have any active participation in the preparation
or creation of these documents .
ApSar^to'bt^ teller work check copies and vouchers. These items
correspond to previous years to the vouchers and copies of checks
which are found in the corresponding boxes of the federal
depository. To the extent that these boxes contain copies of
checks that were written for personal expenses of LEK as described
in previous boxes, those documents would be personal property of
LEK or his personal businesses.
Appear to be the same kinds of documents except the list at the
NCUA show that these "were at IRS" for whatever that means. These
documents would be the personal property of LEK to the extent that
they paid personal expenses of either himself, his businesses or
his immediate family.
BOXES 169-213 ^ t
To the extent that these boxes contain checks, vouchers, etc. that
relate to personal expenses of LEK, his immediate family a^d his
personal businesses, those would be the personal property of LEK.
Bv way of example, there is a check paid to the order of Old Market
Limousine Service in the amount of $19,996.33 bearing the date of
3/9/87 check No. 88963. This would be a personal expense of LEK
and would correspond with an invoice contained in the file which
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
would be also personal invoices of LEK.
BOXES 214-215
Unavailable for review because they are contained in Mr. Kirchner's
office and we are advised they are currently under review. We have
not been permitted access to Mr. Kirchner's office.
BOXES 300-344
These appear to be generally books, general ledgers, teller
reports, daily reports, transaction journals and other bookkeeping
records of the credit union. These documents show transactions
relating to LEK, his immediate family, or his personal businesses,
they would be considered to be the personal property of LEK. LEK
had not participation of the preparation of these documents, except
for a minimal number of transactions which LEK may have recorded in
the early 70 's of the books and records of the corporation.
BOX 400
Contains 1984 invoices and many of these invoices relate to
personal bills of Mr. King and his business and are very similar to
the documents previously itemized for 1987 and 1988 (see Boxes 57
and 59 of the Search Warrant Documents) . These 1984 invoices
relate to Mr. King's personal businesses, family gatherings and
invoices related to personal travel. Mr. King believes that these
boxes were probably in storage at the time of the close of the
credit union. These files were formerly kept in Sandy Rhode's area
in the executive suite at FCFCU, but were in storage at the time of
the close of the FCFCU.
BOX 401 (Invoice file for 1985 similar to search warrant material
in boxes 57 and 59)
1985 invoices relating to purchases of a personal item such as a
boat, invoices relating to Limousine services, documents relating
to political funding, invoices relating to personal travel of Mr.
King and his family, bills for personal legal fees from Byrne-
Rothery and also personal correspondence from Byrne-Rothery to Mr.
King. These files were formerly kept in Sandy Rhode's area in the
executive suite at FCFCU, but at close were in storage.
BOX 402 (Invoice file for 1985 similar to search warrant material
in boxes 57 and 59)
1986 invoices and bills regarding donations to organizations,
personal bills regarding Mr. King's boat bill, relating to his
personal businesses, personal travel of Mr. King, legal fees, and
the like. These files were formerly kept in Sandy Rhode's area in
the administrative suite at FCFCU, but at the time of closing of
FCFCU had been placed in storage.
49
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
BOX 403 (Invoice file for 1985 similar to search warrant material
in boxes 57 and 59)
1987 Invoices and bills - these were kept in Sandy Rhode^ s srea in
the administrative suite. Many of the invoices in this box are
personal in nature such as those relating to Mr. King s Washington
DC house, invoices for restaurants, King Co. bills, clothing,
donations, fund raising activities. It also contains some personal
correspondence of Mr . King .
Identified by the inventory of the NCUA as "documentation for cash
data base” these appear to be hand authorization cards for the
withdrawal from various accounts of the credit union of cash. To
the extent that these items would relate to cash withdrawn from a
King personal account, for LEK's personal travel, or other personal
expenses of his, his immediate family and his personal businesses,
they are King's personal property. LEK may have had input into the
creation of these documents to the extent that he requested Sandy
Rhode or some other employee to prepare authorization cards.
First°part of documents in file are personal property relating to
the 1984 Republican Convention, and were stored in Mr. King s
office.
Sack of keys identified as coming from King's desk which LEK
believes are his keys - all personal keys.
Remainder of material is not LEK's personal property.
Remaining files are not personal files but upon
belief LEK believes the files came from either Sandy Rhode s office
or Tom Harvey's office.
&Ua dux ' , t
LEK states that all information contained in that box is personal
property and would have been stored in LEK's office.
Files would have been stored behind Sandy Rhode’s desk and
maintained by her; two files are personal to LEK, the Christmas
List file and the file containing the material from Steak
International .
Mr. King believes that this material came from Dan Kane's office,
or behind the west wall in the secretary's area; all materials are
personal to Mr. King.
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
BOX 504 ...
Material appears to have come from Shanita Spencer's office; all
documents appear to be personal to Mr. King.
BOX 505
These documents appear to have come from Sandy Rhode's office or on
the west wall of the secretary's office and appear to be all
personal property of LEK.
BOX 506
The material appears to have come from LEK's office..
Contract and Insurance - King files are personal with the exception
of some documents in the Contract file.
BOX 507
Comprised of documents which came from Sandy Rhode's office space.
Black bound book is personal to LEK. Documents contained in file
House - 2021 Wirt St. are personal to LEK. File relating to
Lincoln Univ. Club is personal. Contained within this box are four
free standing documents? memo to LEK from Dan Kane; Agreement
between LEK and Rodney Evans, Insurance premium notice and two
insurance premium notices which are personal to LEK. File relating
to Saab 1985 is personal. Jeep Cherokee 85 file. Grand Wagoneer 85
file are personal.
BOX 508
Located in either LEK's office or in Sandy Rhode's office space.
Following files are personal to Mr. King: Carol Rogers, Bob
McGuire, Dancellington, keys contained in the manilla envelope.
BOX 509
Located in either LEK's office or in Sandy Rhode's office. All
documents in the file are personal except the following:
Contracts, Old Deposits, Letters of Support, Franklin USA, Fair
Housing Workshop, Franklin Credit Union Board of Directors.
BOX 510
Came from the west wall of the area occupied by the Administrative
Assistants, Kurt King and Terrance Powerll. All files are personal
except the following: Adopt-A-School, Conditioning New, Annual
Meeting Reports, 1973 CSO, Franklin 1973, Articles 1974, .^ticles
1975 thru 1987, Clippings-Articles, 1988 Articles, Clippings and
Newsletters, Bishops Equipment, Ford Pictures, Burglary, CATS, CD-
GB Program, City Contracts, Consumer Affairs, Comprehensive
Directory and Referral Program, Counciling City, Port Actions,
Franklin South Office, Business Technology Center.
51
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
BO* 511 ^ .TT
LEK believes that the files came from Sandy s office. All
documents are personal except the following: Franklin .USA TA
Grant, Salary Advances, Supervisory Committee, Franklin, Cox Cable,
portions of the Assoc. Underwriters, portions of the Memos Out and
Memos In, Misc. Insurance Material.
BOX 5X2
It appears that these files came from either LEK’s locked
Sandy Rhode's locked area. All files are personal except the
following: Internal Revenue, Local 1140 Internorth, Loan Policies,
Mom's, Inc., Loan Policies, Frank Mann, "MCI", NHS Loan Servicing,
Office Products, OEDC, Omaha Area Board of Realtors, Operation
Bridge.
BOX 513 ^ ,
Appears to be old material out of Joel Rogers desk or work space -
none of which is personal to LEK.
CaL^Vrom LEK's office or the Administrative Assistant's area.
Material relating to the political matters is personal, but the
remainder appears to be non-personal.
BOX 515
LEK does not know where these documents came from and they appear
to be all non-personal documents.
BOX 516 ,1
Appears to be material that came from all over, and appears as well
to be non-personal.
BOX 517
Appears to have come from some space within CSO, and contains non-
personal material.
BOX 518 ,
Appears to have come from CSO space and appears to be non-personal.
BOX 519 . . ,
LEK is not aware of where the documents came from and all materials
are non-personal.
BOX 520 . . ,
LEK is not aware of where the documents came from and all materials
are non-personal.
BOX 52 X
LEK does not know where the documents came from and are not
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
personal .
frunaware, the material appears to have come from booWceeping,
all is non-personal.
Ill material which apparently came from Joel Roger's workplace -
none of it is personal.
Appeals to have come out of Tom Harvey's office - none of it is
personal .
Ill doL not know the location of this box. All ««
ex«pt the files relating to Consulting and Church of the
Intercession, which are personal to LEK.
LEK is^not aware where the documents came from and the files are
non-personal.
LK believes these materials came out of Sandy's office and are
personal .
Ill doL not know the location of these materials - non-personal.
LEK does not know the location of these materials - non-personal.
LEK does not know the location of these materials and non-personal.
LEK does not know the location of these materials and they are non-
personal .
LEK believes these files were in storage. All documents personally
TPK oarticularly those labeled “Personal and
ctSidSntial" would bl the personal property of LEK. Particularly
oersonal within the file are various attorney/ client communications
Mr Joe Bvrne to LEK about several personal matters relating
Jo spinal, legal and financial circumstances.
Correspondence relating to the Republioan National
19^ are personal property of LEK. Correspondence between Susan A.
CaCis and Srin the file is personal. Those communications of
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
Byrne and Rothery to the extent that they relate to work not
performed for FCFCU or CSO are personal to LEK. Letter dated
8/1/84 from Professional Leasing re: 1982 Mercedes Benz is personal
to LEK. Box contains outgoing and incoming correspondence for the
years 1984 through 1986. Much of the incoming and outgoing
correspondence is personal to Mr. King in the sense that it relates
to either personal matters of Mr. King, or matters of his personal
businesses. By way of example, there is a personal and
confidential letter dated 11/8/84 from Mr. Joseph C. Byrne,
attorney to Mr. King re: Calvin Ed“U**Care Center, there is another
letter from Mr. Byrne to Mr. King labeled personal and
confidential, re: insurance coverage on L & M Services,^ Inc. and
Massa, Inc. , these files are of a kind and very similar in content
to Box 6 contained in the federal depository, for which this
Affidavit contains a specific description of documents. By way of
further example is correspondence and attached^ pleading from
Carolyn Rothery of the Byrne Law Firm to Mr. King with reference to
a personal law suit in the municipal Court of the City of Omaha,
C84-3136M. By way of example of the outgoing 1985 file are the
following: personal and confidential letter to LEK from Joseph
Byrne re: Boystown donation by Mr. King personally. Letter of
11/12/86 from Byrne & Rothery to LEK marked personal and
confidential re; operating costs for the King Co. Another example
is a personal memo from LEK to Ron McDuffy re: Jamaican properties.
The attached correspondence from Byrne & Rothery dated 11/6/85 re:
Jamaica real estate. Several other letters and memos of Byrne and
Rothery re: personal business of Mr. King or his personal
businesses. Other example is a letter dated 1/25/84 from Joe Byrne
to Kevin Morrissey re Massa, Inc. relating to return of a duplicate
payment by Massa, Inc. Another example is a letter from Lawrence
E. King to Howard Kaplan dated 10/24/85 re: Jamaica trip. Another
example is a 7/27/84 letter to Jackson Graham from LEK in regard to
the Dallas Republican National Convention. Another example in the
incoming 1985 file is a letter from Joe Byrne labeled personal and
confidential re: Restaurant Food Service of Omaha, Inc. Other
examples: letter from the Ritz Carlton dated 1/24/85 to Mr. King.
A letter dated 1/31/85 from Joe Byrne marked personal and
confidential re: plumbing repairs at 13232 North River Road;
personal and confidential letter to Mr. King dated 9/30/85 from
Terry Wade of the Susan Davis Company, pile of loose papers
contained in box 532 with letters like: 6/13/85 marked personal and
confidential from Joe Byrne re: Mr. King's lease. Examples of
outgoing 1986 correspondence that is personal is a letter by LEK
\dated 9/9/86 to the Health Services Program of the Pan American
>Devel. Foundation with reference to a $1,800 personal contribution
to the foundation to sponsor preparation, packaging and shipment of
medical equipment to Kingston, Jamaica Hospital; letter to Howard
Kaplan dated 1/15/86 with respect to the people in "Jamaica"
contained in the outgoing 1986 file; letter from J. Derr to Jessica
54
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
James dated 8/5/86. Examples of the 1986 incoming file would be a
letter dated 5/28/86 from J. Derr to LEK re: freight claim
concerning the chandelier; letter from Bahr Vehmeer and Haecker,
architects dated 4/2/86 with reference to remodeling at 2021 Wirt
St. ; letter from Joe Byrne to LEK marked personal and confidential
re: cash pickup for Cleopatra’s; letter of 2 / 26/86 from Joe Byrne
to John P. Ford of Schmid-Ford re: King v. Max I Walker; homeowner
application of Terry Weiss dated 2/6/86 showing an additional
insured as the King Co.; letter of 2/13/86 to LEK from Joe Byrne re
Akasaka; letter from Joe Byrne dated 1/14/86 to LEK marked personal
and confidential re: Mr. King’s (tape went blank); personal letter
to LEK from the American Cancer Society re: $750 contribution;
5/5/86 to LEK marked personal and confidential from City Wide Rock
and Excavating Co. re: electric fence as well as repairs to the
wiring for driveway lights; additionally there is much
correspondence between Mr. King and various members of the church
community which is personal, much correspondence between political
associates of Mr. King and Mr. King. These files are also full of
correspondence between Mr. King and charitable organizations which
are personal. Correspondence concerning Mr. King personally or any
of his personal businesses would be personal property of Mr. King
as well, an example is a letter from Byrne Rothery, etc. marked
personal and confidential re: Kendall Barns to LEK; letter of
11/21/86 from J. Russell Derr to LEK re: King Co. Omaha Custom
Cut; letter from Joe Byrne to LEK re: Cleopatra’s Restaurant and
Lounge dated 1/25/85.
There are some incidental personal documents in this box but they
appear to be of no consequence or importance. Files appear to have
come from perhaps the South office and, ^ specifically, perhaps
Martha Johnson’s office, although Mr. King is not certain of that.
BOX 534
Appears to
BOX 535
Appears to
BOX 536
Appears to
BOX 537
Appears to
BOX 538
LEK does
personal.
have come out of accounting and appears non-personal,
have come out of accounting and appears non-personal,
have come out of accounting and appears non-personal,
have come out of accounting and appears non-personal,
not know where these items came from nor are they
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
l“ l^not aware where these items came from. LEK was on Board of
Knoxville College but does not believe the documents are personal.
Many^items are personal, but do not appear to be significant,
is not aware of where they came from.
LEK
. Twic nffice Many of the documents
All documents came from LEK s ottice. naxiy , . , ^ pT-ickson
contained in this file are personal. Example,
and Sederstrom contains all personal documents as well as very
sensitive attorney-client privilege documents* ^Many of the
llTsonZl f ties Which are contained in Box 548
of the King Co. including the following: Charles Bellemy, Allan
Conrad, Marc Holtzman, Doug Hughes, David Madsen, Jay Morrell, B
O'Toole, Greg Sapp, and Laurie Schulz.
BOXES 549-553
Located in storage and appear non-personai.
This”li>x comes from the desk of Terrance Powell («ji''in toe
administrative area), an administrative
File contains materials of a personal nature whito
with on behalf of Mr. King, including such items as copies of
personal profiles of Mr. King, personal
community committees on which Mr. King was active and similar
personal matters.
The contents of this box came from Gwen Pierce's area within the
administrative office suite. This box contains mainly personal
records that Ms. Pierce kept on behalf of Mr. King, in that she was
lan^lhodl's assistant. Included in this box are such otters as
Apollo Bach Travel, Mr. King's personal tickler
regarding personal travel of Mr. King, travel schedule of Mr. King.
56
NCUA WEST OMAHA DEPOSITORY
BOX REVIEW
BOX 558
This box contains materials from Shanita Spencer's office, included
within the box are files concerning Showcase Lounge including such
items as insufficient funds checks of Showcase which Ms. Spencer
was handling, Showcase contracts, matters relating to the National
Black Republican Council and the Republican party and other
j t ? political matters. Files relating to Brownell-Talbot are personal
, , in nature, files relating to personal donations, files relating to
C.O.M.A. , personal in nature, files- concerning Congressional Black
Republican Caucus. Also contained in the file are memos to Ms.
Spencer regarding Mr. King's personal businesses and other personal
matters or committees which she may have dealt with on his behalf.
BOX 559
Some of the contents of this box came from the executive suite,
specifically the files of Terrance Powell an administrative
assistant to Mr. King and involved personal matters such as the
Showcase Lounge and personal travel of Mr. King.
BOX 560
Contained within Box 560 are files of Sandy Rhode area in the
executive suites which relate to political committees and
organizations in which Mr. King participated and are personal in
nature and also related to community activities and committees
which Mr. King is active in and are also personal.
Files of Dan Kane - these files mainly relate to personal political
activities and organizations which Mr. King was active in and are
personal in nature and also some of the Dan Kane file relate to
travel which is personal in nature.
BOX 562
These documents came from the office of Barbara Moore and a file
regarding Brownell-Talbot fund raiser 88 is personal in nature
relating to one of Mr. King's fund raising activities.
BOX 563
These are files of Judith Carroll. Files in this box are personal
in nature relating to the following files: Fund raiser -King
Companies - Frontier's Intern '1 fund raisers - Exchange Club
Luncheon - Celebrate in Youth file - Chanticlair - Cafe Carnivale,
small parties - Aksarben Membership Drive 1987 - Thomas Tipton
Concert - Unlabeled file containing "notes 3/4/87 are personal and
relate to Chateau Lounge" - Family reunion - Omaha Symphonic Chorus
- materials in file labeled Franklin/CSO, promotional materials are
in fact personal in nature - Frontier's Style Show - Luncheon. All
files cited within this box relate to promotional work which Ms.
Carroll performed for Mr. King personally.
57
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
For the District of Nebraska
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. CR89-0-63
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) AFFIDAVIT OF STEVEN E. ACHELPOHL
)
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR. and )
ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants. )
STATE OF NEBRASKA)
) ss
COUNTY OF DOUGLAS)
STEVEN E. ACHELPOHL, being first duly sworn upon oath states
and deposes as follows:
1. Affiant is one of the Court-appointed counsel for the
Defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr. .
2. He has represented the Defendant in this matter and on a
limited basis in a related civil matter involving the National
Credit Union Administration Board since on or about May 19, 1989.
3. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "K" and incorporated
herein by this reference is an inventory which has been supplied to
the undersigned in connection with documents which are housed at
the West Omaha Depository under the control of the National Credit
Union Administration.
4. Upon information and belief. Exhibit "K" is the only
inventory of documents which exists with respect to the documents
of the FCFCU and CSO housed at the NCUA Depository. Further, upon
information and belief. Exhibit "K" is not an inventory of
documents which were seized pursuant to the NCUA's Conservatorship
Order, but rather only an inventory of documents held at the
Depository from whatever source derived (ie. it includes documents
obtained by NCUA through administrative subpoena) .
5. Upon information and belief, your Affiant states that
there is no inventory in existence identifying what documents were
seized by the NCUA pursuant to its conservatorship order. Further
upon information and belief, your Affiant states that because no
inventory was ever made to his knowledge of NCUA seized docximents,
there is no method to determine where such documents were situated
within the FCFCU and CSO when they were seized.
6. Upon information and belief, Affiant states that there is
no method available by which an inventory could be reconstructed,
showing with reasonable particularity what documents, records, and
things were seized by the NCUA pursuant to its Conservatorship
Order, and from what location such documents were seized.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
/ / A
Steven E. Achelpol^
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this day of December,
1990.
6ai£AALti3TAaY-StatiofiUi^
DEBORAH T. WAUACE
My Comm. Expi May 11. 1993 I
Notary Public
0DX NUtl3l:R YeflR/FROrt MONlH/TO CONfENTS
NOTE'S 1
NOTES 2
COUNTTK
tsotib
99&4
1X578
JAN/MAR
If^ACnVE CO & SHARE FILES
INACTIVE CO & SH ARE FILES
INACTIVE CO & SHARE FILES
JNACllVf CD & S»W<E FILES
‘INACriVT CO'XSHARETIEtS
INACTIVE CO & SHARE FILES
TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES t VOUCHERS
" APR/DUNE mCERTSDRK/CHtlX" COPlEST«“VDUCHtRS
APR/ JUNE teller WQRK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
JUl/SIPT TELLER WORK/CHTCK COPIES & VOUCHERS
'•^L/SEPT FECCER'VmCTCHfiCX ■a)PltT>nB“\aJCR£R571NCa»
OCT/DEC
OCT /DEC
“JAN
TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
FEB TELLER WORK/VOUCHERS
rm TELLER WCRK/VOUCHERS
APR TELLER‘WORK7VOOCflER5
HAY TELLER WORK/VOUCHERS
JLHE TELLER HORK/VOUCHERS
riuLY
AUG TELLER WORK/VOUCHERS
SEPT TELLER WOfiK /VOUCHERS
■ OCT TELTER'Vmr/VOUCflBfS
N3V TELLER HORK/VOUCHERS
DEC TELLER WORK/VOUCHERS
“jAN/NAR — umirw^TcHTO^' copiErsE50”ocT/orc
APR/SEPT TELLER HORX/CHECK COPIES
JAN TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
‘FEB ^TeLLffi“HQRK76lECX“TSf^rKT^^
HAR TELLER HQRK/CHEQC COPIES £ VOUCHERS
APR TELLER WORK'/CHEOC COPIES £ VOXHERS
‘ NAY copiESTmxms-
JUNE TELLER WORK/CHEOC COPIES £ VOUCHERS
JULY TELIER WCRK/CHFCK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
AUG TELLeR“W0R</CH£C5nXiPIES”^~V^^
SEPT TELLER WQRK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
OCT TELLER WORK/C HECK COPIES £ VOUCHE RS
DEC TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
JAN ^TELLER HOKK/ai£CKJX)Pl£S £ VCIOIPKS
FEB TELLER' WORK/CHECK COPfE^li^VOUCHERS'"
fWRCH TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
APR TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
nr\Y TECLER"W0R)7CHEan»PrF5TVOOCIlER^^^
JUNE TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
JUlY ULLFK HORK/CHfCK COPlfS fi VOUOURS
AUG ■“ " TELLER HORK/CHECK' COPIES'fi" VOUCHERS ‘ ‘
XJL/AU6 TELLER HORK/CHECKS
SEPT ^ TELLER HQRK/CHECX^ COPIES £ VOUCHERS
SEPT ■ "TFLLER'HGRK/CHECK .COPjfST VOUCHERS “
OCT TELLER HORK/QHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
a:i UllER WCIO^/aiEEK COPIES & VOUCHfRS
NJV TELLER W0I?k7&ECK COPIES' £ VOUCHERS
NOV TELLLR HORK/OIECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
COUNUR
BOX NUrBER YEAR/FROfI rtONTH/TO CONFENTS
r
TELLER W(>^X/O^ECK COPIES & ViXJCHERS
. TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES & VOXWERS
’^HTLLER-TCTCA> ffC K COPTC S g r V O U C H gRS -
TELLER WOKK/CHECX COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/aiCCK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER WQRK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HQRK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER WQRX/CHECK COPIES S VOUCHERS
TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
r aLER ^- W CR T/ C H fC K" COPIt S-S - V O UCH g R S ”
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/VOUCHERS/CHECKS AT IRS
TELLER HORK/VOUCHERS/CHECKS AT IRS
TELLER HORK/VOUCHERS/CHECKS AT IRS
TEC l T R ’ K iy /V t mgR ^C HECK S’ n T- T R S "
TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK CXIPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
r aU E R HCf t K/ C HE C X COPI ES & V O UCH E RS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES <. VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER WDRK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
rmER-HORK/CHhlX-UJPltS £“VaXH^
TELLER HORK/aiECX COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
mLER- HORK/CHEOrCOPirSTr VOUCHERS"
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPUS & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES fi VOUCHERS
"TELLER vaoc/atcrTXiPiE5T;*ira^ —
teller HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VQLCHER5
■ TELLER'VOOC/DIECK"COPIF5'1£TKXJ^
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
TflLfR HORK/CHlCK COPIES £ VOUQlERS
TELLER W0RK7PIECK COPIES irVOUCHERS
TELLER HORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
NOTES I NOTES 2 CaJNiFK
16b
Kl>: NUrihtR YlAK/fRCn nCJNTH/10
’mri
1988 JUNf ItLLER MDfiK/CHECK COPIES & VOLCHERS
1968 JUNE teller WORKyCHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
1988 JULY r£Lini‘U«K7CHECK’TOUESTrW^
1988 JULY TELLER WORK'/CHECK COPIES & VOLCHERS
1988 ALrxi^.1 TILLER HORK/CHtOC COPIES & VOLCHIRS
1966 ' AUGUST ‘ ‘TELLER WORK/CHEOTCOPTESTTVOOC^
1968 SEPT TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
1968 SEPT TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES S VOUCHERS
T988' “ " 'OCT TELCER'TJORiTCREC*^
1968 OCT TELLER WORK/CHECK COPIES £ VOUCHERS
1S188 NUV TLLLER HORK/CHECK COPIES & VOUCHERS
1968 ' ' NOV CHECK^COPTES'TrrmXSTIOTTEJrAn
CA^CELLED CHECKS £ BW RECONCILEMENTS
196^-1965 PERIOD EM)
19b6‘ PrRTOO“Efl5
1967 PERIOD EM> 1ST AM) 2M) QUARTER
1976 1982 GENERAL LEDGER AMD OFFICE ACCT5; 1317 STATEMENTS/ 1978
1976 ■ 0OOKS
► 1977 BOOKS
► 1978 BOOKS
1978 TRTATBAEANCE ’SKARrACDOCWTS
[ 1979 TRIAL BALANCE SHARE ACCOUNTS
I970(LATE) QiICK REGISTERS 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981
• 1969 1973 TM)rViaJArSHARrTmwrTnDGER5rTX969^^^
1969 1976 GENERAL LEDGERS, SHWE ACCOUKIS, MISC
1900 OLIVEHI PRINTOUTS
' 1981 SHARETracwTsrflrsrromo^
1963 TELLER REPORTS JAN>FEB-^1AR-APR-rtAY-JUNE
1983 TELLER REPORTS JULY«AUG-SEPT
.1962 DAlCrREPORTS~JANTOWR-AW^WY=^
1962 DAILY REPORTS JULY-AUG-SEPT-OCT-fOV-OEC
I 1964 TRANSACTION REGISTER JW-FEBHW-Am-TlAY-JUNE
1963 TR^tf^SSCTTON REGISTDTrXICY^T^OG^’SEn^Tq^N^
I 1964 TELLER REPORTS JULY-AUG-SEPT-OCT-NOV-OEC
198b TELLER REPORTS EEJ-^-APR-MAY
1965 TELLER'REPORTSTOCY^AOO“SEPT
1905 TELLER REPORTS OCT-NOV-OEC
1906 TELLER REPORTS JAN-fEB-MAR-APR
19fi6 ' ■ TELTER REPORTS MAY-JUNE-JULY-AUQLsY
1966 TELLER REPORTS SEPT-OCT-NOV-OEC
1986 TELLER REPORTS JAN-FFB-MAR-APR
1906 “ "TELLER REPORTS JULY-WJQUSf
1966 TELLER REPORTS SEPT-OCT
1906 TELLER REPt3RTS NOV-OEC
1987 TELLER RYpORTS SEPT-OCt-NOV/dOX C^LE“fi MEDTCaFUDS
1988 TRANSACTION JOURNALS JAN-FEB
1980 MAR TRANSACTION JOURNAL
1968 APRIL^TRANS/CTION JOLRNAL
1908 mV TRANSACTION JOURNAL
: 1908 JUNE TR/V^3ACTIQN JOURNAL
1908 ■ ‘ JULY TRAN^TldFTJOURNAL
t 1988 AUGUST TRANSACTION JOURNAL
19E« SEPTErtiEK TRANSACT ION JOURNAL _
► 1968 OCT fi NOV TRWSACTltlN JOURNALS
1988 FROOF MASTER LISTING
INSURANCE POLICY, GENCRAL FILES
HANSEN. BILL
AUTOrwTED CLEARING COMPUTER PRlNTOrTS, LETTER TO*
CHURCH ITEMS
BELL FEDERAL
bO>: NimR YfAK/FRcn nwin/io
545
546
547
548
549
IK
549
BK
549
BK
549
EK
SX'
550
BK
5X
UK
XI
551
BK
552
ac
X2 ”
" BK"“
552
BK
S'.kl
BK
554
' BK"
554
BK
554
BK
554
BK
554
BK
554
BK
ptRSOr^a FILES & msc
FILE CABINET* CASH ACTION. 1096-1099-1096 OWA Ih5 GRANTS, CETA
BOX MARKED ‘KING DESK'; ERlCKSCTi/SEDERiEMPLOYMENT APRS; PERSOW^EL FILES 730
ACauniNQ DLPR 1; METRO fllNlSFRlfS; JR IfcAGUf PRO PCf.Al ;LISTS. fRONTIER CONCERT IMO b<J A(A
■ ACCaWTlFG"D£PrrrPOR6rrBESSrO£DC“;‘"JArtES HARTS’‘Xl»ESHrP;“’Y0LJh>3TTEPUBLTCAN;“‘JLNrTENT>Vl^^
ACCOO^ING DEPT 1* MALCOLM X; NCCJ; JACK KEMP(EtS) BENEFIT; CENTER STAGE. 'GOINS KJflE*/ 11-10-69 A63
ACCOUNTING DEPT 1; SYNOD; FAIR HOUSING; BOY SCOUTS NE FREDERICK DOUGLAS COPIES OF CQNTRI OKS/ll-10-e9 A61
■TlCCOCWTTKG DEPT'll’VARlOUTBSairTIW’FORHSnmf^^ 467
ACCOUNTING DEPT 1: CANCER SOCIETY; COOPERATIVE SHOPPING CENTER; ALPHA KAPPA ALWA/ 11-10-89 AGS
ACauNTlNG DEPT 1; UNITED WAY. W.I.C. BALLfllAP/ UTILITY CRISIS INTERVENTION; OPERA CrAHA 11-10-69 46S
r^ofties ii-io;^a9 abt-
ACOOLNTING DEPT 1; EMPLOYEE NOTES; TINSLEY MEMO; REfUlLlCAN CONVENTION; 11-10-89 A68
ACCOUNTING D EPT 2i COAG. HUD, MIL LARD FOUNDATION; CSO FED GRANT APP; KIEWIT GRANT APP/ 11-10-89 ^70
ACCOUNTING DEPT 2; CSO HUD PROPOSAL; NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING; INVESTMENT H/0 RISK (KING)/ 11-10-89 A71
ACCOumiNG DEPT 2; GIRLS CLUB; HUD SELF H£lP; ROLOOfX lMO-89 A73
~ACCaNTING"DEFTin>ESK“CCNTWrS^ DIARY^ING ‘igeS-BT; MW’XINS'’TH0TD5/'ai-I(l-e9 2I7H
ACCOUNTING DEPT 1; DESK CONTENTS: BILL WlLSON/COMA PEONY PARK (MALE) CONTRACT; 11-10-69 A79
ACCOUNTING DEPT 1; DESK CONTENTS; KING'S TTTAVEL SCHEDULE 11-4-88; BARBARA SIMON/ 11-10-09 480
BK ACCOUNTING DEPT 1: DESK CONTENTS: MERCEDES ELLING- TON; LEASE ON SWANSON TOWER APT/ 11/10/89 477
6K ACCOUNTING DEPT 1: HUMAN RiaiTS CAMPAIGN FLM); D&O LIABILITY INS APP;DOUG WILLIAM FOUNDATION/ 11-10-89 476
BK* ACCOUNTTtCTJEPTTTTTtSKlXN^ nMOnrCM H'GL' BAiANClNG- ROdDEX/TX^lD^Og flBT
EK ACCOUNTING DEPT 1: DESK CONTENTS; POLICE/ODELL ETC GRIG DOC ON OMAHA CL75TOM CUTS/ OULLINANE/ 11-10-89 478
BK HARVEY/VAULT: CUNA GROUP INS; COMPUTER MANUALS; ROLODEX; FCU ACCOUNTING MANUAL U-lD-89 48A
EK HARVEY/VAULT: COMKJTER P/0 ON IRA PROGRAM 11-10-89 485
8K HARVEY/VAULT: FMPLOYEE ATTEN) RfCORDS 1984-88; JOB Dl'X; MIX. JK. VOUCHERS Ufc<8; lMD-89 483
BK TECLER"CaJNTER'rHONEraW3afnLE(WT9e7rHCD"llST^'^PLOYEE‘DIRECTC«Yr(»S'’m JJBT
EK TELLER SUPV; BAFK VERlF/CUSTOnERS; TELECHECK; MARKED MONEY COPEIS 11-10-89 491
BK TELLER; SHOWCASE CONTRACT: &iTLER; PETE HALL ITEMS SHARE STATEMENT; JEAN CARNE CONTRACT/ U-JO-89 489
BK TErLErO0U^:'^Tim‘Trri^ll^^^ POST IFlO^-gg 4®'
SPENCEF^SHANITA
"SPENCER, ^ITA
SPENCER. SHANITA
SPfNCfR.__SHANlTA
■SPENCERrSlW(nA'
BROWEa TAIBOT; COBG; DORA
TELLER SUPV DESK: ERICKSON SEDERSTRQM LETTERS; ORIGINAL ACCT « ASSK^ BOOK 1961-1964/ 11-10-89 486
TELLER; MISSING 0R16 PAGE FOR ACCT N ASSIH^ BOOK; MONFY (CURKFICY) TRANSF REOOf^D (396U-b&)/ 11-10-89 490
■‘TELLER'SUPV; RQSBERnieTl^tlQ^; MrSCTEtTERS MEMOS rftOlJOOEXESrtELllRS"CARirFlCE/Tr-^^ 492“
TELLER SUPV: EUGENE HALL; MIX; HCO; 11-10-69 493
SPENCER. SHANITA; BROWEa TAIBOT; COBG; DORA MCOAVIS LOAN FILE; KING CO 6ARNISH1ENT/U-10-e9 497
"SPENCER, S^fTA: SHOWCASE PLANS; fRUDfifTinAl CL aTK" CaFCT ATTE fiERYTPERFOf^nEVATr^^JOTEBCS^^ 496^
SPENCER. SHANITA: EQUP LIST; NATL BLACK REPUB;RePU CONVENTION; KING BUSINESS PRO- POSALS/ 11-10-89 496
SPfNCfR. SHANITA; S. 33RD PROPERTY SALE; FCfCU CONTRACTS; FAIR HOUSING 11-10-89 499
■SPENCERrSHANnA7SH0WCAS£‘BAD' CHECKS';* BAFKRUPTCY“FORmrEMPi:* APP/TERMlNATI0NS;*“P0nClESrrPlO^ 498''
BOFM. BILL: MIX; SCHElERMAN/POHELL: INVES CONTRAC CO RATES; DEVELOP DEPOSIT WORK SHEETS/ U-17-a9 XI
SCHEIERMAN/POWELL: EXTENSIVE MAILING LISTS; ROLXEX; CA RD FIL ES 11^ -17-89 ^
SHEIERMAN/ROWELL: NOTE PADS; KING TRAVEL SCHEDULE/ NOTES; NEW ORLEANS PARTY; 11-17-89 X2
KAr>lE. DAN: OT^UG .PROG; COMA; BHL WILSON; CARMEN/ HUGE I ; CITl/ENS FOR AMERICA; 11-17-89 S04
■ KANE, OAN; DOUG CO* REPUBLIC/^ -’ EXEC JET 11-17^ SOfT
RECEPTIONIST DESK: RECURRING TRANS COMP REPORTS; GRIG 0RD MI S/i981( YELLOW B1^D) ROLOaEX/U-17-a9 X7
PRUCHA. SANDEE; OTVWA STEAK IW; NAME/ADOR LISTS ;_0ANCELL1NGT0N; Kll« CO FORMS 11-10-89 506
HARRISON. JANICE:" MEMOS^ LEHERSr JACK KEMP "flKD-" RAIS£R;“BROCHjRES'; 0£P“DfVEL0P"VKSHTS/1l-I7^89 "SOO”'
SAMUELS. AL: HUD/CAP; RECURRING TRANS COMP REPORTS 11-17-89 510
REFO. BfTTY: MIX MEMOS; HARROlO, MAD (IFINEJ^MIX l(V\N COlltCTKJN NOTES H-l?- 69 509
MOORE. BARBARAi’ RaODEX; NOTE PADS; LARSEN,'" ’ ' SCH^OEOER ACCTING ENGAGE LETTR FOR AUDIT/ 11-17-89* '511 “
MOORE, BARBARA: CO RATES; SUPV MTG MINUTES; DOUG WILLIAMS FCJUNO; ARLENE DAVIS FILE/ 11-17-89 512
oox rjurniR YD^/n^on nuNin/fo coNrtNTS
/»
562
BK
>
563
BK
563 ■ ■
BK
ft
663
BK
e
563
BK
/
563
ac " "
563
BK
563
BK
56A -
BK
biA
EK
56A
ac
b5A ■ ' ■
BC ~
565
a.
i*£.
BK
- 565
BK • -
L«C
S67
BK
- * - 568 1983
BK
569
BK
i.i
570
BK
571
BK
5//
BK
600 1969-77
„
601 PRM983 ■
■ -
602 PRE-19a3
603 PRE-I9e3
f ' ‘6£M 1985 "
_
(XJ6 1986
I 606 1987
jt
607 1987
-
j.
606 1987
609 A
■ *•
610 DA *“
“PC
>v
611 Ml
YA
' 612 A
M
613 N
7'
■B 61A 1966
A-7
[j-
615 1987
A-H
4-j
= 616 1987 ■ "
H-R —
4) 1
j 63'/ 1981
1982
1 618 1981
198A
4J
619 1983
—
4,
620
621
622 1986
1987 ‘
>4;
j 623 1970
1980
1 44
! 62A 1977
1981
!•*'#
6?5 1975
1978
iftj
626 1901
1982
■ ft»
62/ 1S62
1903
r 628
-
‘ 629
! 630
! 631
u.
I 632
MDORE, BARBARA: BOARD LISTS; BROWNELL GALA
CARROLL, JUDITH; FRATKLIN USA-HXBTON; CHANTICLEER
tARrtWTR’
— Carro ll ; ju ott h! T w n w LO Wg R - k i ng -b at
CARROLL, JUDITH; PORGY & BESS; FRONTIERSL INTL.
CARROLL, JUDITH: CARROLL‘S FILES (*8A, 85. 86)
- ‘ CRRROLXT’JUPlTH r g VT SS-C ni C'T R
CARROLL, JUDITH: AKSARBEN; UTILITY CRISIS INTER-
CARROLL, JUDITH: TIPTON CONCERT; KING FAMILY
SOUTH-OIA HA ! SEN. CARf CUR TI S D C PO S TT
NOTES 1 NOTES 2
11-17-89
CAFE CARNf^VALE; PARTY LIST; SO,
Tt^OAr7OP^^t<5^rAt1rH0c^ — sor
COUNTER
OnAHA 12-1-89
n WCL I N ; —
SaHH OflAHA: CORRESPOtOENCE; HEETINGS/TUE HCT{K;
SOUTH OHAHA: FCfCU BOARD MINUTES; CSO; OLD CONTRAC
“tJOUTH-CrwHA:
SOUTH Orwm: ITINERARIES; AL SAMUELS LEHERS;
SOUTH OtWiA; LnTERHEAD; BARKSDALE MEMO F1LE(HU6E)
‘‘-SOUTTrtm iA : BAIL I' A TT O C i RE P CH T; WK T PO L tCY ; “
SOUTH OfWTA; PERSOWEL/INSURWCE FORMS
RECEPTIONIST AREA: TELEPHONE LOG BOOKS; A
KING CONCERT; CELEUNATE *88;
KING CO,; ADOPTASCHOOL TROPHY;
“SO: -OnAHA/ 12-1-09
VENTION; USA 8ALLETAP;
REUNION; OMA SYMPH CHORUS;
t/A
SO, OrWHA 12-1-89
SO, OMAHA/ 12-1-89
ATTY ALLISON-OAVIS FILES;
ORIGINAL Sim IN/OUT RECORDS;
smxM . -rist A Ff-iiiNutt:8rttytt:“-
BARKSDALE LEHERS; JOB OESCR;
FRA^KL1N USA
“T I M E -
SO. 0hAHA/i2-l-e9
SO. OMAFVT/ 12-1-89
■ 12*1-H ^
12-1-89
12-1-89
:UU1 T V'LOW'b/lr-t
TO BE FILED/12-1-69 626
12-1-89 627
513
616
“BIO*
61A
519
— t52Cr“
517
518
522-
62A
521
89~b / 8“
m t CR-’C a J N Tt R ! W “9*S
TELLER COUNTER; DO SHEETS;
CO DISCLOSURE FORMS
HEKDERSON. Oi FRANC USA REQUESTS/RESPONS; BROWNELL
Ra t G r /PESS!
1987 TELLER COUNTER;
LOAN FILES
“ A-CT-nm TTLtS
GR-PA LOAN FILES
PA-YO LOAN FILES
g XC H G" CLUP; - K I N S-p"
TELLER REPORTS 100 SHEETS
12-1-89
11-10-89
■’ltna=P9
11-10-89
TALBOT BENEFIT ;TELE.LOGS.;ROLDE
t aA r -p AR nC S; ’ O C - P AR TYr R C PPL CN-
11-10-89
X;CARM/HUG£L;
par h ; iino^ ■
528
529
-28r-
732
733
-m-
A9A
276
-rrr-
278
279
“PAIEFOUr LCWniES
A-7 PAIO-OUT LOAN FILES
A-M PAIO-OUT LOAN FILES
■A-RH’ATDWTTOAN FILES
$-2 PAIO-OUT LOAN FILES
inactive loan FILES
“INALTIVt LOAN FILLS
INACTIVE LOAN FILES
INACTIVE LOAN FILES
-2PCr
281
282
-ZP3-
20A
285
“ TNAcnrrvrioAN tkes
INACTIVE LOAN FILES
INACTIVE LOAN FILES
nOWCTTVt L0rt^“nLE5
REJECTED LOAN APPS
REJECTED LOAN APPS/INCLUDES COAG
’ RE JECTEDaOAN 7\PP5
REJECTED LOAN APPS
REJECTED imi APPS
- 2 88 -
287
288
-289“
290
291
-292-
293
29A
-REJECTED' L0WAPP5
CHARGED OFF LOANS
CHARGED OFF LOANS
■ LOAN RECORDS'
CHARGED OFF LOANS
CHARGED OFF LOWS
niSC CLOSEDTOWTTLES
lOAN FORMS
LOAN FILLS CURRENT CU5T0tlERS-MlSC
disc miNQUEKrnofJB
CREDIT COttllTTEE & LOW INFO
-29S
296
297
-298-
299
3(X)
“301“
302
303
“30A-
30b
306
■307“
308
NUUS 1
633
700 1983
“701 1987
702 1980
■/(Kl ]<i33
704 1964
708 198b
706 1965
707 1987
708 1900
*/()9 1983
’710 1964
711 1966
712 1964
713 198b”
714 1987
71b 19tfi
716
717
718
719 ‘ ”
720
7/1 A
722 S '
723
724
72l> .
726
777 )98b
800 1961 ■
801 1981
802 1982
U)3 1982
804 19ftJ:J
iUp ITO
806 1964
807 1964
800 1964-85
809 1985
810 1906
811 1986
812 1986
813 1987
814 1987
81b 1987
816 1987-88
817 l‘ft<8
818 1968
819 1988
820 1987-68
821 1«17
822 1968
873 1«0*&4
824 1S64-85
82b 1963
OWkGEO OFF LOANS
LOAN REJECTS
nOAN’REJFCTS
HCO VOUCHERS
hCO VOUCHERS
“HCO VOUCHERS
HCO VOUCHERS
HCO VOJCHERS
“HCO'VOUCHERS
HCO BOOKS
HCO 80QKS
“HCO BOOKS
HCO BOOKS
HCO DELINQUENT LOAN REPORTS
“HcoijnriNQUFhnnnwRTmwT
HCO delinquent loan reports
HCO DELINQUENT I DAN REPORTS
HCO-CTTYOF'OrtAH
HCO-CITY Of OflAH
HCO-HISCELLANEOU5
“ICO^ENERATADR
HCO-LOAN5
ICO-DIVELOPIIENT LOAN SIATEUFNTS
“HCO W/ELOmENT XQAN'STATEMEJTTS
HCO-DEVELOPriENT LOW STAT01ENTS
HCO- INDEX
■'hco^fices
KH5-fllSC
NCR-N6 80OCb
“•OlRECT'OEPOSir AirmORTTATIONS
DIRECT DEPOSIT VOUCHERS
DIRECT DEPOSIT VOUCHERS
■“DI RECrDEPOSXrVOUOTRS
DIRECT DEPOSIT VOUCHERS
DIRECT DIPOjIT RECEIPTS
DIRECT OEPOSIT'VOUCHERS
VfRlflCATlONS, MEDICAL CARDS. fllSC
MEDICAL CARDS & TEaER REPORTS
do'wuchers^m^iCaTW^S
00 SHEETS
OOSHIEIS
00 SHEETS
DO VOUCHERS
TELLER REPORTS S 00 SHEETS
"TELLER REPORTS"jANnr£B/DO "SHEETS
DO SHEETS
JU) SHftTb. MfUlCAL CARDS. ADC. 81LL PAYING LIST, COX C
"00 AUTVCRUATIONS
DO VOUCHERS. COX CABLE, EUS TICKETS, TELLERS, OPPO AOCT
DO AUTHORIZATIONS. MEDICAL _
DO SHEETS ’ ‘ ■ ■
MEDICAL. TELLFR REPORTS
UTILITY TAUC INIAIIF
UTILITY TASK PORCE INTAKE “
CLOSE OUTS, TRAVEL ERS. UTUITUS
826 1985
827 1906
■ -828
829 A
830 I
- 031 P
832 T
900
1000
1001
1002
1003 -
1004
1004
kl004
^1005
1005
’1006
1006
1006
-1006*’
1005
1005
-1005
1005 11/88
1005
■1006"' *- —
1006 11/88
1006
1005 ■ "• •• —
1006 1906-1967
1006
1005
1005
1006
1006
1 1006
1006
' 1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
1000
1006
me
IOCaS
1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
lOOC
1006
UTILITIES
REMITTANCES APR-MAY-JUNE
— nr5cn.tANE005
FILE CABINET-DIRECT DEPOSIT AOTHDRllATlONS
FILE CABINET-DIRECT DEPOSIT AUTHDRIZATIOfM
FILE CABINET-DIRECT OEPCeiT AUTHORIZATIONS
WALL PLAQUES
MASA/AICASAKA-OEPOSnS, STATEMENTS & CHECKS
KING. LAWRENCE & ALICE BAIK STATEMENTS S CHECKS FIRSTIER 046-4-060
C50 CAPITAL CAMPAIGN-OEP & OKS FIRSTIER 624-1-Z73 KING, L.E. SR. OEPOSITS-FIRST NATL 64406328
KING, L.E. SR. CHECKS FIRST FWTL BK 64008328
KT NG. * i: * . * E. s mnee c H C Cxs.D r p o s iT S & S T A T Pim r s — iiss r isi co w or h r t
APOLLO BOCK TRAVEL AGENTS
BRITTANY JEWELS
DEAN - W ITT ER ’REYNOCDS
LEHERS IN REGW TO SUBPOeai DOOUMENrS
BORSHEIM'S
GAIN B09WORTH
CARMEN GROUP
-K lNSrCAm C N Cr T. S ALIC C PL O C/FOAr S- WA T iayU. BATK
AKASAKA - COrllERClAL FEDERAL 6372412-6
AMERITAS FINANCIAL SERV/BAf^ERS LIFE FOR EMaOYES
-TTRO - o r a ero s t ree t
ADAMS. JETTIE - COftlERCIAl FEDERAL 2216 448-6
CONSUMER SERVICES & UTILITIES TASK FORCE
"-AMEKTem-rXFRESS/S U rt W r C r~AC€C U^ S T A T EMEN T S
CAFE CARNAVALE - COWERCIAL FEDERAL 6282602-1
DAIN EOSWORTH INXRPORATED: FTWKLIN’S ACCOUNT
’TlATN’BOSHGRTTrTFRATiaiT N ’C R EDn UN I ON ' Ii BEN E DIC TINE
COLONIAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION. INC.
HARVEY. EARL T./VISA GOLD
"HARVEY ."t. THGPWSTK;
HARVEY. fttRY JANE
HARVEY. E. THOmS JR. CHECKS t DEPOSITS
FRATKLIN'S ACCOUNT
COmJNnY
BAMC OF AMLRICA
-XOTU'flTT'Bff^rDF -NT ISIT-^
CITI8A^K
COfTUNlTY bAN< 1611-013
HARVEY, EARL T./VISA BANC ONE/ 114 168590313384
HARVEY. E. THOMAS JR./CtmJNITY BATK OF NE 511-013 11-63-8-85 STATEMENTS WITH
HARVEYrEARL"T:"VrWa"3/WE DOUGLAS* COUNTY BAMC
HARVEY. M«IY JANE 8 EARL (DEPOSITS) 171036757 FIRST NATIONAL OrWHA
HARVEY, £. THOMAS JR., DEfOSITS COmUNITY BAF^C 1511-013
"HARVEYT E7tfa'n".“S’TV«Y^ANE/FTRSTNEBRASKA (^ -UNICN'ITBSTA Zr0O794
HARVEY. £. THOMAS JR., CHECKS & DEPOSITS CQftUNlTY 1611-013
HARVEY. E. THOMAS .DEPOSITS 8 CHECKS/COmJNITY BATK 11511-013
HARVEY, M.J.";' DINERS CLUB STATEMENTS 13896^728347- 0033/1983- 19e8rEARL' HARVEY
HARVEY, WILLI/VI 8 HEIZEA. GRETCHEN OCCIDENTAL NEBRASKA/AUTO LOAN
HARVEY. WILLIAM 8 GRETCHEN NCRWEST BANC
HARVEY, MARY"JANE: COmJNTTY BANC 1202-568
HARVEY, imi T, 8 MARY JWE 171036/57 (DEPOSITS)
HARVEY, CYNTHIA- R. iSCPOSITS 8 CHECKS/COftl BAMC 1(514-896
HARVEY, EARL T./PLATINUM CARD AMERICAN EXPRESS -CENTURION »t:
EWVrY, emL JR (TOM) 8 mary jane norwest b^/auto loan
K4024-02 38-9031-1141 425
594”
1542418-0004-377443 419
607
14168590490224 432
FRAMCLIN CHCS ATTACH 595
‘•l-SZTD-’I 596“
6-1-86 THRU 12-2-06 597
60$
722“
605
602
‘l389&-728347’-KXJ25/06 42Cr
590
699
600
601
1(^75810300220437 -- "430
431
^ UOX NUnUfR YLAR/FROI FOmH/lO
rr —
looe
1006 _
1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
1006
10(X'>
1006’ '■
1006
1006 1979-1988
1006
1006
J(X)6
1006 ■
1006
1006
1006 ”■
1006
1007 1984 1987
1000 1987' "1989
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
J017 ' ■
1017
]017
# 1017
1017
1017
CONTCNlf.
NOILS 1
NOIFS 2
COJNlfR
SCOTT, CLARLNCE A./1713
SLAP/963
HftRVtY, EARL T. £ FWRY JPNE
mRVLY, CY^fTHlA £ STEVE. COMlERCiAL FEDERAL
HARVEVrEARrTTMASTERCflWS
“0008/1988"
MJTUAL BENEFIT LIFE
591
593
“W“
NOT NARY JANfS OAIJOIIER
"FIRST NATIONAL ONATiA'
629
630
FWRVEY, EARL T. £ FWRY 3ANE
HARVEY^ttARY JANE (LO^)
“HARVEY“ “
HARVEY, £. THOMAS JR., CHECKS £ DEPOSITS
HARVEY, EARl T. £ rWRY JANE
"HARVEYrhAROANT/FV^OmO
FIRST NATIONAL OMAHA
CXmJNITY BAMC
■ 1I5A1PI7OS‘-5O0A=1442^22“
1710367-67-00 427
424
T^m:rcTTW3 —
COmJNITY BA^K 11511-013
COmuNlTY BAfl( lOAN 03-89 ATO
11-85
"603“
604
701
“nRS'TNATIONAU’OMAHA"
HARVEY, rWY JANE JOINT ACCOUNT WITH MCOAFFREY,
HARVEY* MARY JANE £ JETTIE ADAMS - CCmRClAL FED
"ViARVE'i^EARrT:T HARY"’3ANE71V2>TERC^
DOROTHY FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS
1182025-6/5364202-0
■|54XI=I7D9=5096^7475"E85"
420
707
HARVEY. MARY JANE/ FREE ERRED VISA
HARVtY, MARY JANE/VISA MAST ERCARO/MERCANT ILL BA^K
*HARVEYrHICmEL~Cm«RCrArTEI>^^
TTR5T"NmCN?Omi?r
CITIBAT^
*15151205000027700
«4271-3a24-{X>47-4314 587
I4672050058280 588
HARVEY, EARL T. £ fV«Y JWE/COmWITY BAMC CHECKIN ACCOUNT 202568 11-88 THUi
WADDELL £ REED
"RARVEY7>V«Y“3fiNEn[CAR"T0AN^
01-90/
“Toer
700
592
PIPER. JAFFRAY £ HOPHOOO
FCFCU AT^TATFD STATEMENTS: FIRSTIER 153-7-353
ACCOUNT FRO EARL T. HARV^,
COPIES Of DtfOSnS 84-87
JR
"589“
590
434
BAf^ STATEMENTS H/ DEPOSITS FOR CAFE CARNAVALE
HARVEY. EARL T. £ fttRY J/VC FIRST NATL 7103675700
“AMERI0W“EXPRES5
446
423
1^: ■■
KING. LARRY-OINERS CLUB
SOmfR, MAGNLISON, DAWiON-CSO AUDIT
“iSr'lWITED'BEQ^WrORIGTNAraiSTOMEirr^^
BOX lAKFN BY MCRFRY 02-21-90 TO EVIDENCE ROOM 8K
449
53?
15T UNITED BELLEVUE-ORIGINAL CUSTOMER FILES
1ST INITEO BELLEVUE-TRUST DEPT FILESi CHECK CARBON
GEORGIdllOOE’itrSTOft'E
'11^5-88
11-25-89
PAYMENT REGISTER
53A
535
xninnKYMAFPsr
GALLERIE DE METROPOtlT/W
EVANS, ROONLY
KAM AIR INC':
CUtlEKClAl EEDERAt 5370093-9
"57^
543
710
DUNCAN AVIATION
FIRSTIER SIGNATURE CAROS FOR FEW*CLIN CO
1S3-7-3S3 £ 137-7-0/2
637
661
L.
I i
101 /
1017
J017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
1017
EVANS. RCDNEY (AUTO LOAN)
KANE. REBECCA SCrt^ELL £ DM K/VC
DEAN HITTER REYNOLDS INC.
"EVANS'. ROONEY"
COrtJFED 5343158-0.5376136-7
VISA
MASA / FIRSTIER BA^K/LCYW FILES
_£VAN5. fWTHCKY (CAR LOAN)
"H£LL£RTAPPRAISER5rD£SlGNER$“£“ PURCHASERSy
KANE. DANIEL (12917 WESTWOOD LANE. OMAHA)
JIAN CLAUUE JITROIS
KANE ;■ DANIEL ‘M./CHARLES SCHWAB
“Citibank
nOSTlY MASA
NORHEST 6Af*C
‘lt4l28-280-336'^"'
“TTT
€31
571
■"572""
569
574
OAIN B05WOR1H
MERRILL LYTOT
IWE , REBECCA SCfNELL/NQRWEST BANC
HARL&1 HEiarrS FCU
KANEr REBECCA SGFNELL VISA“(02-14-83 OPENED)" ’ "
EVANS, ANTHONY £ CWRNELL LONG - COTflERClAL FEOfJTL
KANE. RIB! a A SONELL/RAlSTCN BAN<
JANOUSEX FLORIST^ ;iNC.
FLORAL CONCEPTS
“565“
550
539
"553“
555
564
Otvm NATIONA!* BAI^
5369954-8/533685505/5343636-0
(tO/>N:0
114795-018-603-335 576“
70*1
556
'538“
542
eox NireER year/proti pionth/to
KANE, DANIEL & MARY (SUITE. JIT.)
KANE. DANIEL h./N0RW£ST BAM<
KANr,nDW/m>ERS“EWIC
KJN&, LAWRENCE - PREFERRED MASTERCARD
KING. L.E. SR. & DAVIS. ARLENE (HIS MOTHER)
KIHT.'n^WRENCET’-SKrS-'^^ - VISA
KING, LAWRENCE - PREFERRED VISA
KIRKPATRICK. PETTIS. SMITH. POLIAN, INC.
KTPG.~TAWRENCt E " ITT
KIM3 OUMPANY/CONSERVATIVE SAVINGS EW^
LOVGREN ADVERTISING. INC.
KING. LAHRENCE E. III/SaXJRITY mllONAL
KING. L.E. SR. & DAVIS. /^ENE
fvirvvrnirviv^. ri.i i
KING. LAHRENCE E. SR- - IRA AMERICAN CHARTER
KING. LAHRENCE £. SR. S VINETA - MASTERCARD
~KIPC;-LA WRD^C e E . ' & VlNg T A
KING. LAHRENCE E. & VINETA SAVINGS ACCOUNT
KING, LAk«ENC£ E. SR. & VINETA - PREMIER VISA
PIPER, JAFFRAY & HOFWOOO
CITISAPK
FIRST NATIONAL OMAHA
FI RS T NAT IONAL -rr WW^
C1T18AAK
(ONLY ONE TRADE)
DE AN WTTTg R “RrmOLPST
(ACC*T NOT OPENED)
SAVINGS ACCOUNT
COrtlERClAL FEDERAL 5SW72A-A
COPY OF check
FIRST NATIONAL OMAHA
-COmtRri AL“TtDtKAr-ftl024S«”
WERICAN CHARTER
FIRST NATICmi CmiA
lM10-6Sa6-302S-3711 548
03084191220 54/
I4271-3821-131S-D714 546
406
01/13/89 OPENED 399
I54U-1703-4551-8586 411
m“
04/74 TO 01/83 409
14418-1181-7100-2668 567
KING. LAWRENCE £. & ALICE/AMER1C/V4 CHARTER
L & A CONSTRUCTION (KING SR. & ADAMS)
-KING.~CTWRErcr-F . ' SR. g VIN CT A
fURRAY. LARRY/CHARLES SCHWAB
nORLEY, ROBERT S CHERYL/ASHLA/4) STATE BAPK
nORLEY. ROBERT/HESTERN SECURITY BANC (AMES BANv)
MORLEY. ROBERT F./AMERICAN NATIONAL BAN<
MURRAY. LARRY/NORTHERN 8^
fCRLEY, RCeERT F./AMERJCW NATIONAL BAN<
(LOAN ON 725 SUNSET) & CHECKIN ACC'T CLOSED 1-17-83 545
WESTERN SECURITY 6K (AMES BK) 06/27/85 TO 12/16/85 418
1122-809/29-647
10/28/77 TO 06/23/78
SIGNATURE CARD 1/5/83-1/16/87 1156-602-4
(NOTES & CHECKING ACCOUNT)
1964
MORLEY. ROBERT F. /AMERICAN NATIONAL BANC 1966
MORLEY. ROBERT f./AMERICAN NATIONAL BANC OOVfR LETTER TO NOW - LESLIE
“MORLEY; ROBERT’fCA/miCWriWIW^^ ’ADCOUNT HISTORY' CARD
MORLEY. ROBERT & FAMILY//«£RITAS FINVCIAL SERVICE (INSUR/YCE)
MORLEY. ROBERT f. /AMERICA NATIONAL B/MC 1966
1156-602-4
I 156-602-4
A. CONOVER
1156-602-4
RICARDE JEHEIRY
PRUCHA. SANDRA K. - VISA (06/23/82 OPENED)
— BARRETrrrrwTi3onERr,'"S'MLinwnwtmcK
SELTZER, NOEL 0. - MASTERC/«0
5ELT2ER. NOEL - FttSTERCARD
PECfTY PARK
SHOWCASE LOUNGE/HESTERN SECURITY BANC (AMES BANC)
SELT/ER. NOEL 0..
— crwHA ^
PRUCHA, SAFCRA K. & LARRY-CQftlERCIAL FEDERAL
SELTZER. NOEL - MASTERCARD
■ ■NDRTrniDTREArrY'lWWSEnENrfiTTWESTn^^ "TNC:
PYRAMID LIFE
RI21K bROTH£RS*(D.C. WOM£N*S CLOTHING)
SCHHAfOT-OEVfnS
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY COMPANIES
OMAHA NAflONAL BAPK
TU tESlTE ANT'CONOVER’-*
FIRST NATIONAL OMAHA
CITIBANC
05/01/£<4 TO 01/22/85
TVKEE AUTO LOANS
5103694-6. 5180859-7.
CITIBANC
114695-001-249-302 568
115411-1706-4990-9010 616
«542418-0005-80310e 618
!588-
1182-237-5 621
1182677-3. 5203795-1 634
1542418-0002-603580 619
, V NJrtiER YLAR/FRCfl rtjNlM/lO
SMITH BARNEY
SELTZER, NDEL - PREFERRED hASTERCARO
“ pagomo'corp: ^
PRUCHA. SA^CRA & LARRY/NORHEST
SfLTZER, NOEL 0. - VISA
'YhR'AVrATrON
SUSAN DAVIS CO.
BARRETT, MONTGOttERY/fllWY LAW OFFICES
510(0 EWECERSTTNC:
SKY HARBOR AIR SERVICE. INC.
THEODORES
■wiLaAM‘ATT<ii3arrRSSociw^^
DAVID ORGELL. INC.
SELTZER, NDEL/NQRWEST BAM(
(FRAM<L1N CREDIT UNION £ 15689 BENEDICTINE SISTERS) 62A
CITIBANK g&AlO-65A3-'2388-9Al7 6IA
"WTlQAM'FrTFnFFEJrATTORNrY KAYTSTTASSOtrrPA 550"
AUTO LOAN PACKERS 8K-SAV1NCS A52
FIRST NATIONAL OMAHA iAA18-0233-3191-2691 617
CO & AUTO LOAN
1101
1102
1103
IIM
1105
1106 __
’ 1107
1106
1109
1110 ■”
IIU
1112
1113
lllA
1115
1116
\ 1117 BOX A
1117 BOX B
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
112 A
1125
1176
1127
1128
1129
1131
1132
1133
1137
1137
STATEMENTS & CHECKS FOR CAFE CARNAVALE WC RESTAURANT FOOD SERVICE
STATEMENTS A^tJ CHECKS FOR CAFE CARNAVALE II03S-7-691
‘ OEfOSrTS''AND‘CH£CKST>AT/©A^mrNrOUTrFORXARRy“^^^
STATEMENTS M) DEPOSITS FOR SKMCASE LOUNGE
BYRNE. JOE. FILES
BYRNmOETTTItS
BYRNE, JOE, FILES
BYRNE, JOE. FILES
”'BYRNEr:)0£7TTL’ES
BYRNE, JOE, FILES
BYRNE, JOE. FILES
BYRNE. JOE. FILES
BYRNE, JOE, FILES
BYHNF, JOE, FILES
BYRNE, JOETTILES
BYRNE, JOE. FILES
BYRNE. JOE, FILES
“BYRNfT^JDFTTTTES
BYRNE. JOE, FILES
BYRNE. JOE, FILES
"BYRNErJOerPlL'ES
BYRNE, JOE, FILES
BYRNE. JOE, FILES
CUSTOMERrSTATEMENTrWmi^Cl^
CUSTOMER statements NCUA RUN 11-6-88
EXHIBITS TO KING DEPOSITION
^NCUA^WQRK FILES
NCUA WORK FILES/(3W0 JURY
SUPPORTING OOCLMENTATION-NORKSHEET FOR DEPOSITS & UTILITIES DATABASE
I0J6-7-691
"PARKERreoerwoRiCfiLES
NCUA EXAM FILE
A^^ID1ATED BStfi. 1317 & 9A76 STATEMENTS
CO-SHARE-UOAN FI LESSING RELATEO-HARVEV & OTHER’
NCUA WORK FILES
NCUA WORK FILES
STEWART'fi PA(OING
INVESTMENTS - BROKERS (COPIED AT IRS)
PROOF Of CLAllt:»*i'(R Dfar..IT5
DWQRAK, CAROL LVOnftHA NATL BANK ACCT «i2AiA20 '
"CONTENTS'TAKEN BY B^PARKER"
“FILES'THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED’ OR AMdTAT AS PRQeLT ’442"
4A7
NaiA COPIIS Of aifCKS 6 fO'S
ST ATf MINTS, CHECKS. OFP.
DWQRAK, CAROL L./OTWHA WTL BAN(/F1RS11ER/I1241420 STATEMENTS, CHECKS
TO
9-10 -64 TO 5-7-86'
9-8-87 TO 5-6-88
BOX NUreER YEAR/f-ROn nONlH/TO CONTENTS
DWORAK, CARa L./FIRSTIER/ACCT 11241420
DWORAK, CAROL L./FIRSTIER BA^K ACCT 11241420
OMOR AK r C AR O L t,/ Q Wft - W T t CA ft C ACC T 1 413224
DWORAK, CAROL L./FlRSTIER BAT^/ACCT 14132242
DWORAK, CAROL t./FIRSTIER BArK/ACCT 11241420
DWDRAR;^CAR0Ln.T /n R5 n e R BAW/A CCT 1 4 132242 “^
EVIDENCE ON GRAM} JURY IfOICTttENT
STATEMENTS, CHECKS & DEPOSITS 5/6/88 TO 5/5/89
STATEMENTS, CHECKS, DEP.
STATtMCNTS," CHECKS, ■ OCP;
STATEMENTS, aiECKS, & DEP.
STATEMENTS. CHECKS, DEP.
5-7-86 TO 9-8”87 720
TO r ifl
12-18-86 TO 12-20-88 714
5-5-89 TO 2-7-90 715
&D-448 (•Rev. 5-23-90)
FBI FACSIMILE
COVERSHEET
PRECEDENCE
□ Immediate
Priority
□ Routine
CLASSIFICATION
□ Top Secret
□ Secret
□ Confidential
□ Sensitive
□ Unclassified
Time Transmitted:
Sender’s initials: -
Number of Pages:
^'.OS Vtr)
lo
To:
A
! 4 ^ I
(Name of Office)
Facsimile number:
Attn: S/i
(Na7TT5"
From:
lx
-Rsm
(Name of Office)
lelefi)hoh^ Nd.)
0^1 A -s--? o
Subject:
l
< "j -- (a / i)
Special Handling Instructions:—
Originator’s Name:
TeiephOR
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
90 DEC 23
DM I
till
2: 25
EDEL
CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR 89-0-63
)
Plaintiff, )
: )
vs. ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
)
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR., )
and ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants . )
Presented to me is the government's motion to take depositions
(Filing 463) . I shall grant the motion, but I shall impose certain
conditions .
Defendants argue that the government has made an insufficient
showing to justify the taking of depositions in this case and
defendants also argue that they have an absolute right to be
present and to cross-examine the witnesses. As to the second
issue, the government speculates that defendants may not be allowed
to travel to the country of Jamaica, where the depositions are
proposed to be taken, and the government worries that defendants,
if allowed to go, might not return.
I find that the evidentiary showing of the government is
sufficient in that preservation of the proposed testimony is in the
interests of justice because: (a) the proposed testimony is
relevant to the instant superseding indictment, (b) all of the
deponents reside within the country of Jamaica and are not amenable
to service of process to require their attendance at a trial in
this country, and (c) at least some of the deponents have refused
to come to this country voluntarily and others could not be
located. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 15, the government has made an appropriate showing
justifying the taking of the depositions. United States v.
Terrazas-Montano, 747 F.2d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 1984); 8 J. Moore,
Moore's Federal Practice 5 15.03[2] & [3] at 15-28-15-32 (2d ed.
1990) .
Defendants insist they have a right to attend the proceedings
and, with their counsel, confront their accusers face to face.
While there may be extraordinary cases where face-to-face
confrontation is not absolutely necessary to the taking of a
deposition in a foreign country. United States v. Salim, 855
F.2d 944 (2nd Cir. 1988), the general rule is that the defendant
has a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment, Terrazas-
Montano, 747 F.2d at 469-70; United States v. Benfield, 593 F.2d
815, 818-19 (8th Cir. 1979), and a right under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 15, Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(b), to face-to-face
confrontation. The government has made no showing that would
justify any other ruling except for one which absolutely requires
the attendance of the defendants, if they desire, at the
depositions.
The government worries about whether or not defendants will
return from Jamaica. The defendants have been released on orders
setting conditions of release and I have not been notified of any
breach of those orders. The government presents no evidence to
support its concern that if allowed to attend the depositions
defendants might not return. As a condition of attending the
depositions, I shall require that defendants execute a waiver of
extradition so that should the government's concern arise, the
government will not be without a remedy.
Finally, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 requires me to
Assess the costs of taking the depositions, including the expenses
of defendants and their counsel, to the government inasmuch as the
court has previously found that defendants are proceeding in forma
pauperis. Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(c). The Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure also counsel me to impose such conditions as are
appropriate to ensure that the taking of the depositions is
conducted properly. Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(d). Therefore, I shall
enter the appropriate orders.
IT IS ORDERED that;
(1) The government's motion to take depositions (Filing 463)
is granted, but only as provided herein;
(2) The government may take the depositions of the
individuals listed below:
The Honorable and Mrs. Leacroft Robinson
Brigadier and Mrs. Dunstan Robinson
Dr. and Mrs. Warren Robinson
Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Robinson
Attorney Maurice Robinson
Mrs . Pansy Hart
Ms. Carolyn Francis
(3) The depositions may be taken in the country of Jamaica,
and the country of Jamaica is hereby respectfully requested to
honor the terms and conditions of this order;
(4) The scope and manner of examination and cross-examination
shall be such as would be allowed in the trial itself, meaning,
among other things, that defendants may be personally present and
their counsel may be personally present and cross-examine;
(5) The depositions shall be oral depositions and shall be
taken before a court reporter acceptable to counsel for all parties
who has the authority to administer oaths, the deponents shall be
sworn in accordance with the Federal Rules of Evidence, and if
requested by defense counsel, the depositions shall be video taped
in addition to the stenographic recording of the depositions;
(6) The government shall make available to defendants and
their counsel for examination and use at the taking of the
depositions any statements of the witnesses being deposed which are
in the possession of the government and to which defendants would
be entitled at the time of trial;
(7) Scheduling of the depositions shall be at a time and date
mutually convenient to counsel for the government and counsel for
the defendants;
(8) The travel and subsistence expenses of defendants
Lawrence E. King, Jr., and Alice Ploche King, as well as the travel
and subsistence expenses of their respective counsel,
Mr. Achelpohl, Mrs. Abbott and Mr. Fennell, for attendance at the
depositions shall be borne by the government, and if necessary the
government shall advance such expenses;
(9) The cost of transcripts and tapes of the depositions
(including one copy for each defendant) shall be paid by the
government ;
(10) Once taken, the depositions shall be sealed and not made
available to the public until further order of the court;
! ( 11 ) Prior to departing the United States, defendants
Lawrence E. King, Jr., and Alice Ploche King shall execute and
deliver to counsel for the government waivers of extradition from
the country of Jamaica or any other foreign country which they
might enter;
(12) Defendants Lawrence E. King, Jr., and Alice Ploche King
shall travel to Jamaica and return from Jamaica with their
attorneys on the same airplane and shall return to the United
States as soon as reasonably possible after the conclusion of the
depositions ;
(13) If possible, the taking of the depositions shall occur
on property owned by the United States of America in Jamaica, but
in any event, at a place mutually acceptable to counsel for the
government and counsel for the defendants.
Dated this 28th day of December, 1990.
BY T
lOURT;
FD-36 (Rev. 8-29-85)
4
FBI
TRANSMIT VIA:
PRECEDENCE:
CLASSIFICATION:
1X1 Teletype
r~1 Immediate
□ TOP SECRET
n Facsimile
Eel Priority
□ SECRET
□ AIRTEL
□ Routine
□ CONFIDENTIAL
□ UNCLAS E F T 0
□ UNCLAS
Date January 3, 1991
FM FBI OMAHA (147A-571) (P)
TO DIRECTOR FBI/PRIORITY/
FBI MIAMI/ROUTINE/
BT
UNCLAS
CITE: //3600//
PASS; WHITE COLLAR CRIME SECTION, FINANCIAL CRIMES UNIT; OFFICE
OF LIAISON AFFAIRS; MIAMI, ATTENTION; I
b6
b7C
SUBJECT ;
ET AL;
FRANKLIN COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; ET AL; BF&E; WF; MF;
FAG-HUD-IRS; 00: OMAHA.
RE OMAHA TELEPHONE CALL TO LEGAT
DECEMBER 27, 1990.
MIAMI, ON
FOR INFORMATION OF THE BUREAU, ON NOVEMBER 4, 1988, FRANKLIN
COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION (FCFCU) WAS CLOSED AFTER THE
EXECUTION OF A SEARCH WARRANT BY THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION (FBI) AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE j(,IRSJ^ SINCE
MAM: j ja
( 1 )
Thursday- j ja
Approved:
Print Filename:
JJLA.Q.QJ..W...Q.0. 3 .
Time Received:
MRI/JULIAN DATE:
Filter Filename: .j.TAnm .qn . 003
ISN:
00 ^
7
FOX DATE & TIME OF ACCEPTANCE:
Seria"?-’
rrnc
Indexou
— . - a
"'PAGE 2 147A-571 UNCLAS
THAT DATE, RECORDS HAVE BEEN RECONSTRUCTED AND NUMEROUS
WITNESSES HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED REGARDING THE MISEXPENDITURE OP
APPROXIMATELY $42,000,000.00 B^
, SUBJECT
IN MAY, 1989, SUBJEC]
WERE
INDICTED ON 40 COUNTS OP BANK PRAUD, MAIL PRAUD, WIRE PRAUD, AND
INCOME TAX INVASION. EACH HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED BY THE PBI AND
IRS.
DURING THOSE INTERVIEWS IT WAS LEARNED THAT
SUPPOSEDLY RECEIVED A MILLION DOLLARS PROM DISTANT RELATIVES
IN JAMAICA. THOSE INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN IDENTIPIED AS THE
b6
b7C
WERE TO HAVE RECEIVED THIS MONEY AS PART
OP ANY INHERITANCE LEPT TO
BY HER PATHER WHO
WAS A DISTANT RELATIVE OP THE
FAMILY. INTERVIEW OP THE
ABOVE INDIVIDUALS DETE RMINED NO INHERITANCE WAS EVER PAID TO THE
BY ANYONE IN THE
PAMILY. NONE WERE AWARE OP THE
MONIES PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY ONE OP THE
PAMILIES BY
ALL OP THE
DECLINED TO
TRAVEL TO THE UNITED STATES TO TESTIPY REGARDING THIS MATTER.
AS A RESULT OP THEIR DECLINATION TO TRAVEL TO THE UNITED
STATES POR THE TRIAL, WHICH IS SCHEDULED POR MARCH 4, 1991, AN
ORDER WAS ENTERED BY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE
JUDGE RICHARD G. KOPP ON DECEMBER 28, 1990. JUDGE KOPP ORDERED
ATTORNEYS POR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND THE DEPENDANTS'
X
• #
PURPOSES OP DEPOSING THE ABOVE REFERENCED INDIVIDUALS.
DEPOSITIONS ARE TO BE TAKEN IN THE COUNTRY OP JAMAICA. ALL
OP THE ABOVE-MENTIONED INDIVIDUALS HAVE AGREED THAT THEY WILL BE
DEPOSED IN THE COUNTRY OP JAMAICA RATHER THAN ATTENDING THE
TRIAL. ON FEBRUARY 11, 1991, THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS WILL TRAVEL
TO JAMAICA FOR THE PURPOSES OP DEPOSING THE ABOVE REFERENCED
INDIVIDUALS. DEPOSITIONS WILL CONSIST OP CROSS-EXAMINATION BY
SUBJECTS' ATTORNEYS AND THE VIDEO TAPING OF THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDING.
SAC, OMAHA, CONCURS WITH THE TRAVEL OP SA
TO JAMAICA FOR THE PURPOSES OP OBTAINING DEPOSITIONS
PROM THE ABOVE REFERENCED INDIVIDUALS.
IT IS REQUESTED THE BUREAU APPROVE SA |
TRAVEL TO JAMAICA FOR THE ABOVE-MENTIONED PURPOSE.
BT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
■. i' •
JL JL —
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKAq J-'Q^ “O
56
‘‘'tlR' 89-0-€4j£R‘i^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
V.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR.,
Defendant.
MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upph the findings of fact and conclusions of law which
are filed with the clerk of this court simultaneously herewith, and
sealed,
IT IS RECOMMENDED to Judge Cambridge .that the defendant,
Lawrence E. King, Jr., be found competent to stand trial.
DATED this day of h/ciOPm , 1990.
BY THE COURT:
United States Magistrate
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OP NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR.,
and ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants .
)
CR 89-0-63
\ .. Di?TRii
jNJorbec -• Liei Clerk
By - OepL;v
MEMORANDUM AND; ORDER
I : ’
Presented to me is the motion of Lawrence E. King, Jr. ,
(Filing 248) entitled "Second Bradv Motion".^
I have considered the submissions of the parties and the
arguments of the parties, and now rule upon the second^ Brady
motion.
IT IS ORDERED that:
^The government indicated at the hearing on this motion that
it would supply all Brady material by January 3, 1991. On
January 2, 1991, I was informed by counsel for the government that
its copy machine had broken down and thus Brady material could not
be provided until Monday, January 7, 1991. Under the circum-
stances, the government should be allowed to submit its Brady
material by January 7, 1991.
^Categories of evidence generally considered to be Brady
material are a witness' prior record. United States v. Strifler,
851 F.2d 1197 (9th Cir. 1988), cert, denied, 109 S.Ct. 1170 (1989);
witness statements favorable to the defendant, Jackson v.
Wainwright, 390 F.2d 288 (5th Cir. 1968); the existence of
witnesses favorable to the defense. United States v. Wilkins, 326
F.2d 135 (2d Cir. 1964); psychiatric reports showing the
defendant's legal —insanity, Ashley v. Texas, 319 F.2d 80 (5th
Cir.), cert, denied, 375 U.S. 931 (1963); specific evidence which
detracts from the credibility or probative value of testimony or
evidence used by the prosecution, Thomas v. United States, 343
F.2d 49 (9th Cir. 1965) ; promises of immunity to a government
witness, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) ; united
States v. Shaffer, 789 F.2d 682 (9th Cir. 1986) ; and prior contrary
statements of a prosecution witness, Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66
(1967). I do not understand the government to object to providing
such material. Therefore, this order should not be construed to
relieve the government of providing this information.
BliililllBB
(1) The second Brady motion (Filing 248) is granted in part
and denied in part as follows;
(2) With regard to paragraph 3 A of defendant's motion, the
government shall supply criminal records of witnesses; otherwise,
paragraph 3A of the motion is denied;
(3) With regard to paragraph 3B of defendant's motion, the
government shall supply any plea agreements with government
witnesses; otherwise, paragraph 3B of the motion is denied;
(4) The government shall supply or otherwise identify
documents, writings, reports or statements which establish the
receipt, use or diversion of funds belonging to the credit union
by Earl Thomas Harvey, Jr., Mary Jane Harvey, Cynthia Harvey,
William Harvey, Eric Anderson or Bill Hansen; otherwise,
paragraph 3C of the motion is denied;
(5) The government shall supply or otherwise identify any
documents or other evidence establishing the alteration of
accounts, accounting records or other bookkeeping records of the
credit union by Earl Thomas Harvey, Jr., Mary Jane Harvey or
Cynthia Harvey;
(6) The government shall supply or otherwise identify any
evidence establishing an attempt or design on the part of any
employee of the credit union or its affiliate. Consumer Services
Organization, including, without limitation, Mary Jane Harvey or
William Harvey, to hide the functioning of the Consumer Services
Organization or the credit union from Lawrence E. King, Jr.;
(7) The government shall supply or otherwise identify any
evidence establishing that records of the Consumer Services
Organization or the credit union were taken from the homes of Earl
Thomas Harvey, Jr., Mary Jane Harvey or William Harvey, when such
removal or relocation of documents was not requested by the
government ;
(8) The government shall supply or otherwise identify any
evidence establishing the removal or relocation of any documents,
writings or other materials from the homes of Earl Thomas
Harvey, Jr., Mary Jane Harvey, Cynthia Harvey or William Harvey,
other than at the request of the government, which documents relate
to account records or other financial records belonging to
Lawrence E. King, Jr., and/or Alice Ploche King, or financial,
accounting or other bookkeeping records of the Consumer Services
Organization or the credit union; otherwise, paragraph 3D of the
motion is denied;
(9) With regard to paragraph 3E of defendant's motion, the
government shall supply all documents, records, statements of
witnesses, materials or information establishing the receipt or
deposit into the credit union of personal monies of Lawrence E.
King, Jr. , and/or Alice Ploche King, or monies from businesses in
which they held an ownership interest, if such information has not
previously been made available; otherwise, paragraph 3E of the
motion is denied;
(10) With regard to paragraph 3F of defendant's motion, the
government shall supply any agreement by and between the United
States Department of Justice, the United States Attorney's Office,
the Internal Revenue Service and the National Credit Union
Administration establishing or evidencing collusion on the part of
said entities to violate the rights of defendant Lawrence E.
King, Jr. , under the Fourth Amendment respecting the search of the
credit union and/or the Consumer Services Organization and any
seizure related thereto; otherwise, paragraph 3F of the motion is
denied;
(11) Paragraph 4 of the motion is denied;
(12) All information to be supplied by the government shall
be supplied as soon as possible, but in no event later than
ten (10) days after the entry of this order.
DATED this
day of
, 1991.
BY THE COURT:
^Richard . Kopf?
United States Ms
.strate Judge
- 4 -
4
9GCZC !2 A;:!C:29
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ^
FOR THE DISTRICT OP NEBRASKA li. C. 2 . 1 L
CLERK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR.,
and ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants .
)
CR 89-0-63
MEMORANDUM, AND ORDER
i 9 ^
On its own motion, the court will set for hearing all pending
motions (except the motion to suppress the search. Filing 245) and
all motions which may be filed hereafter. Moreover, the court
shall set a deadline for giving certain notices.
Accordingly ,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) all pending motions (except the motion to suppress the
search. Filing 245) , including the following:
(a) the motion in limine (Filing 176) ;
(b) the%otion to suppress statements (Filing 246) ;
(c) the motion in limine (Filing 247) ;
(d) the motion to produce (Filing 248) ;
(e) the motion to produce attorneys' files
(Filing 331) ?
(f) the motion to produce attorneys' files
(Filing 361) ;
(g) the motion to change venue (Filing 387)
srasc’n .
JAN 8 1991
(h) the motion to change venue (Filing 397) ; and
all other motions contemplated by the parties are set for hearing
on December 27, 1990, commencing at the hour of 9:00 a.m., and
continuing for the entire day if necessary;
(2) All motions contemplated by the parties which have not
heretofore been filed shall be filed on or before December 19,
1990;
(3) All notices which may be given pursuant to Fed. R. Grim.
P. 12..2(a) •& (b) shall be given on or before January 16, 1991.
DATED this 12th day of December, 1990.
BY
rr^opf
United States Magistrate
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT- • • -
FOR THE DISTRICT OP NEBRASKA „ «
80D£C!I Arii0:!2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CR 89-6«63-^>.i iLE8EL
Plaintiff, ) ‘ •• •>
) .....
vs. ) MEMORANDUM AND. ORDER
) •
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR., )
and ALICE PLOCHE KING, )
)
Defendants . )
Upon being duly advised by counsel for defendant Lawrence E.
King, Jr. , that they require further time in order to prepare
affidavits regarding the motion to suppress, and the court having
a question about the government's affidavit,
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Defendants shall have until December 24, 1990, to serve
and file their affidavits;
(2) The government is requested to supply the information
described in paragraph 2 of its affidavit, notwithstanding the fact
that the affiant believes said information has already been
provided both to the court and to the defendants, and said response
by affidavit shall be provided by December 24, 1990.
(3) Responsive affidavits to the affidavits of .the defendants
or the affidavit of the government shall be provided January 4,
1991;
DATED
this // ^ day of
1990.
FD-302 (REV. 3-10-82)
- 1 -
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date of transcription
1/16/91
Corporation Division, Secretary of
State, Stare capitoi, provided certified/exemplified copies of
the Articles of Incorporation for RESTAURANT FOOD SERVICE OF
OMAHA, INC. , a Nebraska corporation.
It was incorporated on December 7, 1984, and is
currently in good standing.
Investigation on 1/16/91 at Lincoln, Nebraska File # OM 147A-571 ~7f 7
'’y
Date dictated
1/16/91
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency;
it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
b6
b7C
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO^
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs .
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR., and
ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants .
F t L E D
OP NeS?ASKA
JAN 1 7 1991
Norbeit H. Ebel, Clerk
deputy
) CR. 89-0-63
)
) MOTION TO AUTHORIZE
) PREPARATION OF TRIAL EXHIBITS
)
)
)
0
In order to prepare for trial, it is necessary for the United
States to mark exhibits and prepare an exhibit list. The documen-
tary and physical evidence is contained in various boxes that are \
retained in the Federal Depository in the Zorinsky Federal Building
and in various boxes that are retained in the NCUA Depository at
an Omaha NCUA Reconstruction Office. Numerous boxes at both
Depositories have previously been admitted in evidence during the
motion stage of these proceedings and are being held by the United
States and the NCUA under protective orders of the Court.
In order to mark, list, and organize the exhibits, it will be
necessary to remove the original document or physical evidence from
the Depository boxes, mark the particular piece of evidence with
an exhibit sticker, copy the document, place a copy back in the
particular Depository box, and retain the original for presentation
at trial. Accordingly, the United States requests permission of
the Court to accomplish the following:
1. To remove the original document or piece of physical
evidence from the Depository boxes.
2. To place on the original an evidence exhibit sticker.
Serial 799
3 . To mark the exhibit sticker with a numbering system
convenient to the government.
4. To copy the original with the exhibit sticker so
numbered .
5 . To substitute for the original a copy of the exhibit
(with nvunbered exhibit sticker on the copy) in the Depository
boxes .
6 . To prepare notebooks containing the exhibits so numbered
in numerical order for distribution as follows;
a. One copy for Defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr.
b. One copy for Defendant Alice P. King.
c. One copy for the trial judge.
d. Copies for use by the prosecution.
7. To prepare an exhibit list with the exhibit number, a
brief description of the exhibit and a Depository Box location by
box number.
8 . To retain the original exhibit in the custody of the
United States until time of trial at the conclusion of which the
trial judge shall determine the custody of any original exhibit
admitted into evidence.
9. Upon completion of the exhibit list and exhibit copies,
to make distribution as set forth in Number 6 above.
The United States further tenders to the United States
Magistrate Judge any non-attorney for the United States who will
be removing documents from the Depository boxes in ojsder to
accomplish the above marking procedure so that such person will be
placed under oath and be ordered to maintain the integrity of the
exhibit and the Depository Box from which the exhibit was
extracted.
The United States has consulted with counsel for defendant
Alice Ploche King who had no objections to the proposed procedure.
In a telephone conference call between the attorney for the United
States, the attorneys for Lawrence E. King, Jr. and the Magistrate
Judge, objections by defendant King to the proposed procedure were
overruled.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff ,
RONALD D. LAHNERS
United States Attorney
S D. THALKEN
jLstant U.S. Attorney
The undersigned is one of the counsel for the NCUAB and after
consultation with the General Counsel for NCUAB has no objection
to the procedure set forth above as to any NCUA Depository box
presently under any protective order of the court.
THOMAS M. WHITE
ORDER
The above described exhibit marking procedure is approved and
ordered. Non-attorney personnel for the United States who will be
3
engaged in the exhibit marking procedure will report to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for taking an oath and receiving the
Court's orders prior to their engagement in the above described
marking procedure.
BY THE COURT:
United States Magistrate Judge
FD-302 (REV. 3-10-82)
- 1 -
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date of transcription
1/16/91
Corporation Division, Secretary of
State, State Capitol, provided certified/ exemplified copies of
the Articles of Incorporation for FRANKLIN USA, a Nebraska
corporation.
It was incorporated on March 31, 1986, and was
suspended on January 6, 1989, for not appointing a registered
agent after the resignation of the previous agent.
b6
b7C
Investigation on 1/16/91 at Lincoln, Nebraska File # OM 147A-571<^^
Date dictated
1/16/91
This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency;
it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
FD-302 (REV. 3-10-82)
- 1 -
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Date of tianscription
1/16/91
I I Corporation Division, Secretary of
State, State Capitol, provided certified/exemplified copies of
the Articles of Incorporation for CONSUMER SERVICES ORGANIZATION,
INC. , a Nebraska corporation.
It was incorporated on May 17, 1974, and was dissolved
for non-payment of Domestic Corporation Occupation taxes on June
2, 1989.
Investigation on 1/16/91 at Lincoln , Nebraska File # OM 147A-571
by Q/
Date dictated
1/16/91
^ his document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency;
it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your agency.
b6
hlC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LAWRENCE E. KING, JR.,
and ALICE PLOCHE KING,
Defendants.
)
CR 89-0-63
MAGISTRATE ' S
FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
i p.,„ F 8 L £ D
j district OF NEBRASKA
JAN 1 0 1991
Norbert H. Ebel, Clerk
By — ■ — Deputy
Presented to me is the motion to suppress statements
(Filing 246) presented by defendant Lawrence E. King, Jr.,
(Mr. King) . I shall recommend that the motion be denied.^
I. FACTS
Mr. King, a college-educated black male of mature age, has
given four statements in this case. The first statement was given
on November 18, 1988, and consisted of a deposition taken by
counsel for the National Credit Union Administration Board (NCUAB)
^In his motion Mr. King alleges that the statements were given
to governmental authorities involuntarily, unknowingly, and
unintelligently, in violation of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment
rights under the United States Constitution and in violation of
18 use § 3501. Nowhere in the motion or in any briefing paper was
any issue raised about Mr. King's being mentally incompetent to
give the statements at the time they were given. At the hearing,
Mr. King asked me to consider the prior evidence taken on the issue
of competence to stand trial. Inasmuch as Mr. King had not given
the government adequate notice of his contention that the state-
ments might be the product of mental incompetence, I declined to
so do, particularly since that evidence was not related in time to
the statements. However, these findings and recommendations will
be without prejudice to Mr. King's specifically requesting^ a
hearing on that issue as soon as reasonably possible after the time
for giving his notice under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
12.2(a) & (b) has expired, which date is on or before February 1,
1991. Therefore, on or before February i, 1991, Mr. King shall
seek a hearing by written motion if he contends that the statements
at issue were the product of mental incompetence. In this way the
government will have notice of Mr. King's claims and an opportunity
to prepare to meet those claims.
Serial 804
in a civil lawsuit filed against Mr. King (Government's Exhibit 1) .
The deposition was taken at the offices of Mr. King's retained
lawyers. Present at the deposition were William E. Morrow, Jr.,
Samuel Clark, J. Russell Derr, and Mark Peterson, attorneys for
Mr. King. The NCUAB was represented by attorney Robinson and
evidently an employee of the NCUAB was also present. The deposi-
tion began at approximately 1:15 p.m., November 18, 1988, and
concluded at 4:55 p.m. that date.
The second statement was given on November 23, 1988, to agents
of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) (Government's Exhibit 2) . The statement was
taken at the offices of the IRS Criminal Investigation Division in
Omaha, Nebraska. Present were William E. Morrow, Jr., attorney,
Mark Peterson, attorney, Samuel Clark, attorney, Joseph Breazier,
IRS agent. Dale Bahney, IRS agent, Thomas Powell, IRS agent, and
Michael McCrery, FBI agent. The lawyers present during the
statement were acting as counsel for Mr. King at the time. The
statement began at approximately 9:00 a.m. and concluded around
4:00 p.m., with short breaks in between. At the outset of the
interview, Mr. King was informed that he was the target of a grand
jury investigation concerning tax fraud and possible violations of
the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) surround-
ing the claim that Mr. King had diverted funds from the Franklin
Community Federal Credit Union (Franklin) (Government's Exhibit 2,
at 6: 7-21) . The interview concluded with the understanding that
the parties might get together again to discuss additional
- 2 -
• #
documents and to identify expense items (Government's Exhibit 2,
at 284: 4-11) .
Mr. King gave his third statement on March 31, 1989. It was
a continuation of the deposition given November 18, 1988. At that
time, Mr. King appeared alone and without counsel at the offices
of counsel for the NCUAB. By this time, Mr. King's retained
counsel had withdrawn and no longer represented him. Present at
the deposition were two lawyers representing the NCUAB. The
deposition commenced at approximately 9:05 a.m. and concluded
around 5:00 p.m. that date (Government's Exhibit 3). Various
recesses were taken (e.g.. Government's Exhibit 3, at 286: 15-18).
At the deposition Mr. King acknowledged that he was no longer
represented by counsel, that he had been previously advised of his
rights in a deposition, and that he recognized he had the right to
refuse to answer any questions which might tend to incriminate him
(Government's Exhibit 3, at 142: 22-25; 143: 1-14).
The fourth and final statement taken from Mr. King took place
on April 25, 1989, at the IRS offices in Omaha, Nebraska (Govern-
ment's Exhibit 4). Mr. King appeared alone and agents McCrery,
Breazier, Bahney were present. The interview began at approxi-
mately 8:56 a.m. and concluded around 12:00 noon. During the
interview Mr. King acknowledged that he was appearing voluntarily,
that he gave permission to tape record the interview, that he was
not under arrest, that he was free to leave at any time, and that
he understood he had a right to refuse to answer any questions
posed to him (Government's Exhibit 4, at 1-2). During the
- 3 -
interview government agents played a tape recording that Mr. King
allegedly made instructing an alleged coconspirator to do certain
things allegedly to cover up the alleged wrongdoing at the credit
union (Government's Exhibit 4, at 109-118). The government agents
endeavored to have Mr. King admit the authenticity of the tape and
explain why the tape was not inculpatory (Government’s Exhibit 4,
at 118-131) . It is obvious that the government agents were
frustrated with Mr. King's explanations at times, but the agents
were not abusive (Government's Exhibit 4, at 124).
Mr. King was indicted in May, 1989. The civil lawsuit
commenced by the NCUAB against Mr. King is similar to the criminal
indictment eventually handed up against him (Defendants'
Exhibit 9) . The NCUAB is an agency of the United States Government
organized and existing pursuant to the Federal Credit Union Act.
12 use § 1751, et seq. The United States of America was at all
times represented in this matter by the United States Attorney for
the District of Nebraska. The NCUAB was at all times represented
by its house counsel and local counsel. The NCUAB was never
represented by the United States Attorney for the District of
Nebraska .
II. LAW
Although Mr. King makes a Sixth Amendment argument, there is
no Sixth Amendment concern here since at the time the statements
were given there had been no criminal proceedings initiated against
Mr. King. Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U.S. 682, 689 (1972). Moreover,
Mr. King concedes that he was never "in custody" for purposes of
- 4 -
Hiraoxda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) . Accordingly, the
remaining question is whether his statements were voluntary within
the meaning of the Fifth Amendment.
Whether a statement is voluntary within the meaning of the
Fifth Amendment requires an "evaluation of all of the circumstances
of the interrogation." Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 401
(1978) . See 18 use § 3501(b) . The courts customarily look to the
conduct of law enforcement authorities during the interrogation and
the characteristics of the defendant. 2 W. Ringel, Searches &
Seizures, Arrests and Confessions, § 25.2-25.3 (2d ed. 1990). In
analyzing law enforcement conduct, the courts customarily look to:
(a) actual or threatened physical brutality or deprivation; (b)
extended periods of incommunicado interrogation; (c) promises or
threats to obtain cooperation; (d) use of deception; (e) presenta-
tion of evidence or other factual information; (f) failure to give
warning of rights; (g) whether the statements were made during a
plea bargaining process; (h) whether the statements were made after
prior illegal confessions. Id. at § 25 . 2 (a) - (g) (2) . In analyzing
the characteristics of the defendant, courts customarily look to:
(a) age, race, and mental capacity of the defendant; (b) physical
impairment of the defendant from illness, injury, or intoxication;
(c) prior experience with law enforcement, including knowledge of
the defendant's rights. Id. at § 25.3.
In this case, there was no actual or threatened physical
brutality or deprivation. In this case, most of the statements
were extended in terms of their length, but the interrogations were
- 5 -
not incommunicado and the defendant was always free to leave. In
this case, there were no promises or threats to obtain cooperation.
There is no evidence of deception in this case. In this case,
there was evidence presented to Mr. King, including a tape
recording, among other things, wherein Mr. King allegedly made an
inculpatory statement. In this case, there- were no Miranda
warnings given to Mr. King, but he was aware of his right to have
counsel and he exercised that right on two occasions. In this
case, the statements did not arise out of any plea bargaining
process. In this case, the statements did not arise after prior
illegal confessions had been extracted. On the state of this
record, there is nothing remarkable about Mr. King's age, race, or
mental capacity. There is no evidence that Mr. King was in any way
physically or mentally^ impaired at the time of the statements, and
a reading of all transcripts, and a review of the actual tape
recordings of two of the statements, indicate that Mr. King gave
generally coherent, responsive answers to the questions presented
to him. There is no evidence that Mr. King had any particular
prior experience with law enforcement authorities, although the
evidence does indicate that Mr. King appreciated his constitutional
rights generally.
Mr. King's primary argument is that the FBI and IRS conspired
with the NCUAB to take at least two of the statements when he did
not have counsel. I find as a matter of fact that this argument
is not supported by the evidence. I listened carefully to the
^This finding is made subject to footnote 1.
- 6 -
testimony of Agent Breezier, who was asked specifically by
Mr. King's attorneys whether the FBI and the IRS had waited to
interview Mr. King the second time until after he no longer had
counsel. Agent Breezier said there was absolutely no such plan.
I believe Breezier. Moreover, although it is apparent that the
NCUAB and the United State of America have similar interests, there
is no evidence, in this record, to support the conclusion that the
NCUAB, together with the FBI and the IRS, conspired to take
statements from Mr. King at a time when he was not represented.
Clearly, the first two statements are voluntary for, among other
reasons, Mr. King was represented by counsel during both state-
ments. The last two statements where Mr. King was not represented
by counsel do not reveal anything of substance which would indicate
that the statements were not voluntary, except the fact that
Mr. King was not represented by counsel. On both occasions,
Mr. King was advised that he could refuse to answer any of the
questions .
Applying the totality of the circumstances test, I conclude
that all four statements are voluntary within the meaning of the
Fifth Amendment and 18 USC § 3501.
IT IS RECOMMENDED to Judge Cambridge that the motion to
suppress statements (Filing 246) be denied.
DATED this 10th day of January, 1991.
Judge
- 7 -
0003 MRI 00970
/
PP RUCMFB FBIOM
DE FBIMM #0011 0142027
ZNR UUUUU
P 141910Z JAN 91
FM FBI MIAMI ( 147A-0M-571 ) (NCLO) (P)
TO DIRECTOR FBI/PRIORITY/
FBI OMAHA ( 147A-0M-571 )/PRIORITY/
BT
UNCLAS
CITE: //3460//
PASS: HQ PERSONAL ATTENTION WCC SECTION, CID, FLU, OLIA; OMAHA
PERSONAL ATTENTIOnF
b6
b7C
SUBJECT:
ET AL;
FPvANKLIN COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; ET AL; BF AND E; WF; MF;
FAQ - HUD - IRS; 00: OMAHA.
CONTACT with!
ANd
|DETERMINED THAT ALL THREE WOULD BE WILLING TO
PROVIDE DEPOSITIONS TO A UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S REPRESENTATIVE
AND SUBJECTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS. ALL THREE AGAIN DENIED EVER
SEARCHED
SERIAtlZEO
dexeo
fILEO '
JAN 1 4 1991 \
Taha
PAGE TWO DE FBIMM 0011 UNCLAS
JAMAICAN L*AW FIRM, COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHY EITHER THE SUBJECTS
OR THEIR ATTORNEYS HAD NOT CONTACTED ANY FAMILY MEMBERS TO
SUPPORT THE SUBJECTS' ALIBI.
THE INTERVIEWS CANNOT BE CONDUCTED PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 15,
1991, DUE TO TRAVEL COMMITMENTS OF
EFFORTS TO CON'
WILL CONTINUE. THE
TACT
ARB A CLOSE KNIT FAMILY WHO HAD
BEEN IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER AFTER INITIAL CONTACTS ON
JANUARY 7/8, 1991.
LIVES IN THE
WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA. AN ADDRESS WILL BE OBTAINED AND PROVIDED
OMAHA.
BT
#0011
NNNN
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11